Northwest Arm Crossing

[Corker]

With the closure of Quinpool Road this summer I expect the appetite for a bridge crossing Northwest Arm will be on the rise. Traffic into or out of the peninsula has always turned to gridlock whenever accidents or construction reduce the available lanes and that was evident today for those travelling Chebucto and Bayers Road.

Unfortunately I don't believe HRM or the Bridge Commission has taken any steps to identify future routes or acquire land even if a bridge would be premature at this point. It's a shame as it will only become more difficult as the Herring Cove and Purcell's Cove areas fill in.

In the meantime, it's fun to speculate. I've often thought a ramp could start at the foot of Cowie Hill Road and cross over to Jubilee or South Streets. A more southern route could go from Purcells Cove Road (around the Williams Lake area) over to the Atl. School of Theology and connect with Robie Street. Both routes would have significant issues and obstacles to overcome including the yacht club, Dingle Park, and numerous million dollar properties.

While the mainland population around the area of a southern crossing is more sparse, the route has the benefit of pulling traffic from the universities and hospitals off the peninsula quickly and could connect to a future artery on the mainland and a third crossing to Dartmouth in the Halterm area.

It's all wishful thinking but I'd be interested to hear if the Bridge Commission or HRM has actually done any planning around this.

[someone123]

This was proposed a few times during the 20th century:


Source


Source

It seems like a "no brainer" piece of infrastructure for Halifax, something that would be very useful but has not been built for political reasons (e.g. rich people on peninsula side who don't need the bridge, poor people on mainland side who do, and general anti-road sentiment). It seems to make more sense than developing far-flung areas like Hammonds Plains or building a much more expensive third harbour crossing and putting the same type of development on the Dartmouth side.

It's also too bad Halifax hadn't grown just a bit more by the early 20th century. If that had happened the bridge probably would have been built around the 1910's or 20's.

[Keith P.]

We now see the folly of not building Harbour Drive completely as proposed, continuing next to the railcut and connecting to a NW Arm Bridge. But hey, we have a few blocks of a Disneyfied waterfront in the summer with fake heritage buildings, T-shirt, souvenir, and hot dog shacks (all of which could still have been available in conjunction with an adequate transportation link).

[worldlyhaligonian]

It is a terrible idea.

1) Majority of the population lives north of the arm, so moving westward there doesn't seem to be any advantage? Clayton park is much bigger and it would make more sense to find a way to get people off the peninsula easier in the West end (i.e. the true Bayers Road widening).

2) There are 3 boatclubs as well as other ships that come into the Arm, that the bridge would have to be taller than the masts.

It just isn't feasible.

[MonctonRad]

As has been pointed out, there are thousands of people who work at, study in or visit the hospitals and universities in the area. A Northwest Arm bridge could be connected to Northwest Arm Drive on the mainland side, and this would allow access to the 100 series highways and to the remainder of the metropolitan area.

A Northwest Arm crossing would be an important safety valve, but I would hate it to be a full fledged freeway. Once you get on the peninsula, distributing the traffic to the surrounding street grid could be a problem. I do think however that this is an idea whose time has come..........

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

We now see the folly of not building Harbour Drive completely as proposed, continuing next to the railcut and connecting to a NW Arm Bridge. But hey, we have a few blocks of a Disneyfied waterfront in the summer with fake heritage buildings, T-shirt, souvenir, and hot dog shacks (all of which could still have been available in conjunction with an adequate transportation link).

It would seem that you can't see past your negativity for the big picture. If the Harbour Drive had proceeded it would have cut the downtown core from the harbour, not to mention that we have had Bishop's Landing, the Cunard Block or Queens marque.

Some Toronto city officials are jealous of Halifax's ability to dismantle the Cogswell interchange. They are stuck with the Gardner Expressway which remains a blight on the downtown core.

A bridge across the Arm would be an outdated project.

I just don't understand why we wouldn't invest in the rail cut. I spent some time in London many years ago when they were extending the Docklands light rail under the Thames. The digging was immense to get the rail line sufficiently below grade. This has already been done with the rail cut.

We should be considering a light rail that can travel the rail cut and then continue on Lower Water to the new Cogswell redevelopment.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

It is a terrible idea.

1) Majority of the population lives north of the arm, so moving westward there doesn't seem to be any advantage? Clayton park is much bigger and it would make more sense to find a way to get people off the peninsula easier in the West end (i.e. the true Bayers Road widening).

Clayton Park is bisected by Dunbrack St which is NW Arm Dr. which is a logical connector to an Arm Bridge. That is exactly why one would build it. And as we have seen over the last few years, there is huge resistance within HRM to widening any roads on the peninsula.

2) There are 3 boatclubs as well as other ships that come into the Arm, that the bridge would have to be taller than the masts.

We have bridges across the harbor that accommodate huge container ships. I'm sure any bridge across the Arm could be designed to handle a day sailer's mast.

It just isn't feasible.

Next to "It's TOO TALL!" that is the favorite phrase of Haligonians stuck in the mud. We are victims of our culture of defeat.


Imagine this landmark from Austin TX across the Arm. 1100 ft long overall with a span 100 ft above the water of 600 ft in length.

[MonctonRad]

You must have been watching golf on TV this weekend.

That bridge is a real eyecatcher.

[eastcoastal]

I suspect if it were added right now (or fairly recently), it would act as a release valve and relieve some of the congestion associated with the bridge closure.

However, if had been in place already for some time, I think that it would be at/near capacity most of the time (like the other routes on/off the peninsula) and we'd get gridlock again when one of the routes is blocked.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I don't get how Coburg or South would take the capacity?

Where are the cars driving from to get over the arm that far south? Through the Dingle??? I don't see that part. It seems to be more distance travelled on an equally dense neighourhood on the West side of the arm?

These people are living north of the rotary. It would make more sense to transform the railcut and have a ramp up somewhere.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Next to "It's TOO TALL!" that is the favorite phrase of Haligonians stuck in the mud. We are victims of our culture of defeat.

What? I'm pro development, this is just a terrible idea. If you think harbour drive was a good idea, I don't really know what to say.

How do the cars get that far south on the west side of the arm??? There are as many houses as in the south end!

The only way I could see the bridge if it were somewhere near AYC, but that wouldn't solve the problem.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Sounds like a bit of a political nightmare, to try to build this today.

IMHO, the time to do it was when the 1945 Master Plan was produced, when easements for future routes could have been planned and procured.

There are probably better solutions that would work well to reduce traffic now, such as rail transit, etc., but I can't see the bridge ever happening at this point in time.

[Keith P.]

The easiest way to do it would be at the junction of Herring Cove Rd and Purcells Cove Rd, connecting over Horseshoe Island to Quinpool. That would relive the roundabout of much of the Quinpool traffic and make it work more efficiently for what is left. While not the ideal solution of taking it across further south, let's say where Williams Lake Rd meets Purcells Cove Rd and connecting to either a redeveloped rail cut elevated roadway or South St., it would still help tremendously.

It is difficult to fix the inaction of 70 years. That does not mean we should not try.

[OldDartmouthMark]

So essentially you are just looking at a shortcut to bypass the rotary/roundabout/whatever? Seems like a lot of expense for little payoff. Why not just improve flow at the rotary site and eliminate the need for a bridge?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

IMHO, the time to do it was when the 1945 Master Plan was produced, when easements for future routes could have been planned and procured.

It probably would have been politically easier back then but the land ownership around the potential bridge approaches would have been similar to today (i.e. minimal and about as good as you can imagine for a non-greenfield setting). The big difference is that people, particularly rich property owners, were more amenable to building infrastructure in 1945.

A Northwest Arm bridge wouldn't necessarily look like the Harbour Drive proposal. As an alternative imagine a crossing linking up with surface streets with one lane in each direction, plus one HOV-type lane, plus pedestrian and bike links. The bridge wouldn't just be to move more traffic. It would give people on both sides better access to more parkland and attractions. If there were a bridge you'd be able to walk from downtown to Fleming Park in about 45 minutes (~3 km instead of ~7 today), and it would be possible to connect it up with the Halifax Urban Greenway and Point Pleasant.

I agree that it's disappointing how often people in Halifax reflexively shoot down ideas like this instead of encouraging a bit of creativity and calculated risk taking.

[MonctonRad]

Exactly what I would envisage.

And I would reinforce the concept of a safety valve. Road access to the peninsula is extremely limited, and it never hurts to have another option in case of traffic disruption.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

And I would reinforce the concept of a safety valve. Road access to the peninsula is extremely limited, and it never hurts to have another option in case of traffic disruption.

The "perfect induced demand" argument seems to have become very popular. If we build more stuff it will just become congested anyway so why bother. The perfect road network is whatever we inherited from the 1970's.

As we've followed this plan traffic in cities has gotten worse and worse. This is not what perfect induced demand predicts. It is the Laffer Curve of the 2010's, an abstract theory that holds in limited ways but has been hugely exaggerated.

There's a huge advantage to reducing travel distances. With this bridge the distance required for many trips would be cut in half. The Northwest Arm is the perfect body of water for a bridge, a long and narrow passage. A small bridge saves a lot of travel time. Shorter travel distances also enable other forms of transportation like walking and biking.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

So essentially you are just looking at a shortcut to bypass the rotary/roundabout/whatever? Seems like a lot of expense for little payoff. Why not just improve flow at the rotary site and eliminate the need for a bridge?

St. Margarets Bay Rd traffic would now have a choice and would naturally figure out whether it was worth it to connect over to Herring Cove Rd or stay where they were and use the roundabout. The problem with the roundabout is that is it a roundabout. It is always going to be slow at rush hour and you cannot really fix it as-is. You could build an interchange to eliminate much of the yield slowdown but that money would be better spent fixing the Windsor St Exchange in a similar manner. Plus of course you have Chebucto Rd to deal with as a choke point, constricted by an obsolete rail bridge and militant homeowners who for whatever reason like to chain themselves to street trees so they can live within a few feet of a major thoroughfare instead of relocating and letting that little section of the street be correctly sized.

I fully agree with @someone123 that the urban planners tired old "induced demand" dogma has gotten us where we are today. Halifax has not built any major roadway improvements since the 1970s and yet traffic is far, far worse. When reality bites dogma, dogma always gets hurt. It is similar to the arguments against Harbour Drive back in the day. So now instead we have a narrow Lr. Water St that is often crawling along, with container trucks crashing over bumps and disturbing the bucolic atmosphere of the waterfront. Somehow that is seen as better by those who oppose every roadway project.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

It probably would have been politically easier back then but the land ownership around the potential bridge approaches would have been similar to today (i.e. minimal and about as good as you can imagine for a non-greenfield setting). The big difference is that people, particularly rich property owners, were more amenable to building infrastructure in 1945.

A Northwest Arm bridge wouldn't necessarily look like the Harbour Drive proposal. As an alternative imagine a crossing linking up with surface streets with one lane in each direction, plus one HOV-type lane, plus pedestrian and bike links. The bridge wouldn't just be to move more traffic. It would give people on both sides better access to more parkland and attractions. If there were a bridge you'd be able to walk from downtown to Fleming Park in about 45 minutes (~3 km instead of ~7 today), and it would be possible to connect it up with the Halifax Urban Greenway and Point Pleasant.

I agree that it's disappointing how often people in Halifax reflexively shoot down ideas like this instead of encouraging a bit of creativity and calculated risk taking.

I was thinking more along the lines that the land has been developed and subdivided more, making the land more valuable and with more 'players' having to agree to giving up their land/homes, or agreeing to increased traffic in 'their' neighborhood. Additionally, the general attitude among the public seems to be more along the lines of getting as much as you can out of the deal, and expropriation is much more politically sensitive than it was then.

Plus, using park lands and nature reserves are extremely sensitive issues (as in, you can't do it) now vs 70 years ago. Environmental concerns, while important, weren't seriously considered back then, making it 'easier' to move forward with projects like this. They just had to concern themselves with how to make it physically, legally, and financially possible to do, and damn the rest.

Governments in general were more paternalistic and controlling than they are now and environmental sensitivity was barely regarded. Think Africville, city dumps, incinerators, oil spills, etc. etc. Public protest really didn't become a 'thing' until the late 1960s (think Harbour Drive/Historic Properties, etc.)... this is why I chose the 1945 Master Plan as the ideal time for this level of thinking.

I agree with your idea, though I can hear the complaints over capacity not being enough, and thus traffic jams as 'everybody' wants to use it, but honestly looking at the map I'm having a hard time seeing where it could be viable, given current parkland and residential neighbourhood layouts.

Interesting discussion nonetheless...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

St. Margarets Bay Rd traffic would now have a choice and would naturally figure out whether it was worth it to connect over to Herring Cove Rd or stay where they were and use the roundabout. The problem with the roundabout is that is it a roundabout. It is always going to be slow at rush hour and you cannot really fix it as-is. You could build an interchange to eliminate much of the yield slowdown but that money would be better spent fixing the Windsor St Exchange in a similar manner. Plus of course you have Chebucto Rd to deal with as a choke point, constricted by an obsolete rail bridge and militant homeowners who for whatever reason like to chain themselves to street trees so they can live within a few feet of a major thoroughfare instead of relocating and letting that little section of the street be correctly sized.

I fully agree with @someone123 that the urban planners tired old "induced demand" dogma has gotten us where we are today. Halifax has not built any major roadway improvements since the 1970s and yet traffic is far, far worse. When reality bites dogma, dogma always gets hurt. It is similar to the arguments against Harbour Drive back in the day. So now instead we have a narrow Lr. Water St that is often crawling along, with container trucks crashing over bumps and disturbing the bucolic atmosphere of the waterfront. Somehow that is seen as better by those who oppose every roadway project.

I understand your point, but on the surface I can't see that building a bridge to avoid the roundabout being actually less expensive than just building a better interchange there. If you are gambling that more people would take Herring Cove vs St. Margarets Bay, then design for optimum flow in that direction, which essentially is what a bridge would do. Then you avoid land expropriation along with building a bridge and its approaches - maybe a cost study would prove otherwise, but on the surface I can't see it as being cheaper as such.

Like it or not, 'militant homeowners' are a reality, and they are not going away, and thus need to be taken as part of the equation.

While Harbour Drive was an example of thinking large, I don't see it as idyllic. While you describe the waterfront as being Disneyfied, many many people enjoy it, and find it an attractive place to spend their free time, especially in the summer. I can't see it as being the same if there were an expressway running through it.

As far as container trucks go, there is a simple solution that was proposed years ago that astonishingly has not been taken seriously. Simply using the existing rail service to move the containers to a trucking depot outside of the city, near existing transportation routes (like the 102) would completely solve the problem using existing infrastructure. Sure, you add an extra step in transferring the cargo, but it would probably be a net zero once you take into account the time saved not having to move containers through the heart of the city during the day. Politically it would be a 'win' for those who (like yourself and many many others) find the truck travel an annoyance.