Bringing the population to 1 million

[swimmer_spe]

The population of Halifax is about 400,000. For various reasons it has been slow to expand, even though it has many things that would make sense for it to grow. Some of those are: It is a major port, the availability of low cost land, major freight line connecting the rest of Canada and North America, a rich history, and close to leisure things.

Here are my thoughts on what would be needed to bring the population to 1 million people.

1) Build the 3rd crossing. There is still far too much traffic trying to get out of the downtown core over the bridges, or out to the west. Having that 3rd crossing would alleviate that traffic and have more people considering living in the city. This should be built as a tunnel to prevent only certain ships from coming into the terminals. The 2 Mac bridges already have some limitations to them, preventing growth in the Basin. A divided highway should then be built from it to the 102. This will allow people to easily get around.

2) Build a freeway to connect the Mackay Bridge with the 102. The fact that a highway dumps into city streets that if you need to keep going to the 102, it gets to be a challenge really makes travel in the city difficult.

3) Turn 1 lane on the MacDonald bridge into a gantlet lane for buses. There would be some challenges with timing the signals for the buses, but if the centre lane was bus only, and the buses queued in a different lane than the rest of traffic, and they had the priority, then they could move across the bridge faster than those stuck in the traffic.

4) Build an LRT/Subway line connecting Scotia Square and Alderney Landing. Build the bridge for it paralleling the MacDonald Bridge.This would have seamless travel across the harbour.

5) Build a crossing across the Northwest Arm. This would allow traffic to better flow to the Percells Cove area. Have it connected on the east side to the aforementioned connection to the 102. Have the west side connected to Dunbrack St.

6) Finish building 107 to highways 101 & 102. This is a missing link in the highways system. In fact, the interchange with 101, 102, 107, Sackville Dr and Bedford Highway would be completely redesigned such that the 101 and 107 would be a simple continuation, and Sackville Dr and Bedford Highway would also be a simple continuation. This would clear out the mess of ramps there, and could allow better ramps.

7) Build Highway 113. This again will help alleviate traffic and it seems that it is also a missing link.

Doing these things would begin the process to make Halifax feel more like a modern city and will spur growth in certain areas. If done right, this may also help spur the growth in the core. Instead of tearing down old buildings in the core, they should instead be renovated into condos or apartments. This would make them attractive places to live, and have a better neighbourhood vibe.


Basically, here are my thoughts.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...Kx&usp=sharing

[someone123]

Is it really true that the growth of the region is being constrained by transportation projects on this list? I would agree that the region probably does need a couple new and substantial infrastructure developments since the transportation network mostly dates to about 1970. The 102/103 and Burnside Expressway improvements are new but they won't help with the core much. Maybe the Windsor Street Exchange work will make a big difference; I don't know the details. The rapid transit plan, if built on the timeframe suggested (8 years), will be a big deal and that could grow into something like LRT in the 2030's by establishing corridors.

The city is already growing pretty quickly. The current metro population is around 470,000 right now given the boundary adjustments that will happen for the 2021 census. The CMA grew by about 10,000 people from 2018 to 2019. This implies that the 5 or 10 year projects (5 years being lightspeed in the context of modern major infrastructure development in Canada) will need to be built to suit a city of over 500,000. And a lot of the old planning documents and population projections are too modest given current growth rates.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Is it really true that the growth of the region is being constrained by transportation projects on this list? I would agree that the region probably does need a couple new and substantial infrastructure developments since the transportation network mostly dates to about 1970. The 102/103 and Burnside Expressway improvements are new but they won't help with the core much. Maybe the Windsor Street Exchange work will make a big difference; I don't know the details. The rapid transit plan, if built on the timeframe suggested (8 years), will be a big deal and that could grow into something like LRT in the 2030's by establishing corridors.

The city is already growing pretty quickly. The current metro population is around 470,000 right now given the boundary adjustments that will happen for the 2021 census. The CMA grew by about 10,000 people from 2018 to 2019. This implies that the 5 or 10 year projects (5 years being lightspeed in the context of modern major infrastructure development in Canada) will need to be built to suit a city of over 500,000. And a lot of the old planning documents and population projections are too modest given current growth rates.

The big gamble is that HRM is betting on buses, ferries and bikes to avoid big-ticket infrastructure. But the nabobs at HRM Council/Planning and the zealots who believe in that are the only ones who seem to think that it will make up more than a drop in the bucket. So if/when that proves not to be the magic bullet those groups believe it to be, we are left having wasted a decade or more and still are stuck with a badly outdated transportation grid for the electric or hydrogen-powered personal mobility vehicles that will be here then along with all the heavy truck traffic the economy will demand. We certainly could make good use of added harbor and NW Arm crossings right now, much less 15-20 years from now, and absolutely nothing seems to be underway to address that. The same holds true for a number of the other self-evident needs, like the connection between the Windsor St Exchg and the 102. It is quite bizarre.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The same holds true for a number of the other self-evident needs, like the connection between the Windsor St Exchg and the 102. It is quite bizarre.

I will say Halifax has some conspicuously missing transportation connections. One is the connection between the 102 and the MacKay. This is very obvious on Google Maps where the main routes are highlighted in orange and there's a weird mess connecting these two corridors. The Burnside Expressway is another piece (the Magazine Hill and Windmill Rd not being a real controlled-access freeway) but that is being addressed.

The Northwest Arm bridge is another one. It could be transformative for one part of the city. But look on say Reddit and you'll see a thread about it with a stream of naysayers who make up simplistic reasons about why it couldn't work and do not offer analysis of costs and benefits. I don't think it has been studied by the municipality in the modern era. It's too bad a simple bridge didn't get built back in the 40's or so; if it had, nobody would question it or consider it a boondoggle today. If a Halifax-like city were in the US it would probably have 2x the bridges. Had Halifax been a little bit bigger in the postwar era, the Circumferential would have continued across the harbour, across the South End, then over the Arm on a bridge and connect up with the 102. I don't think a freeway through the South End is a good idea now but I don't think that infrastructure is 100% a bad idea either.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

I will say Halifax has some conspicuously missing transportation connections. One is the connection between the 102 and the MacKay. This is very obvious on Google Maps where the main routes are highlighted in orange and there's a weird mess connecting these two corridors. The Burnside Expressway is another piece (the Magazine Hill and Windmill Rd not being a real controlled-access freeway) but that is being addressed.

The Northwest Arm bridge is another one. It could be transformative for one part of the city. But look on say Reddit and you'll see a thread about it with a stream of naysayers who make up simplistic reasons about why it couldn't work and do not offer analysis of costs and benefits. I don't think it has been studied by the municipality in the modern era. It's too bad a simple bridge didn't get built back in the 40's or so; if it had, nobody would question it or consider it a boondoggle today. If a Halifax-like city were in the US it would probably have 2x the bridges. Had Halifax been a little bit bigger in the postwar era, the Circumferential would have continued across the harbour, across the South End, then over the Arm on a bridge and connect up with the 102. I don't think a freeway through the South End is a good idea now but I don't think that infrastructure is 100% a bad idea either.

I have met people like those in person. They tend to forget that the city is no longer small towns. I was there when they widened Chebucto by 1 lane. They had to cut down a few trees and there was an uproar over it. The city embodies the NIMBYism to the extreme.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by someone123

But look on say Reddit and you'll see a thread about it with a stream of naysayers who make up simplistic reasons about why it couldn't work and do not offer analysis of costs and benefits.

Similar to anywhere else online, here included, Reddit can be a terrible echo chamber at times, particularly in municipality-focused subreddits like r/Halifax, r/Toronto, or wider range subreddits like r/Canada. It's where you get the most leakage of users from places like Facebook or local newspaper comment sections. Like anything it's just a matter of overpowering these negative viewpoints with more rational viewpoints.

I agree that Halifax probably needs to improve some of its road network but the issue I take with this thread is that it seems geared to the idea that building transportation links will generate local growth when really the opposite should be true - transport should be built to accommodate growth, not to expect it to be created from it. Build it and they will come is inherently flawed, IMO.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Here are my thoughts on what would be needed to bring the population to 1 million people.

This would be better worded as 'Here are my thoughts on what would be needed to accommodate a population of 1 million people'

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I agree that Halifax probably needs to improve some of its road network but the issue I take with this thread is that it seems geared to the idea that building transportation links will generate local growth when really the opposite should be true - transport should be built to accommodate growth, not to expect it to be created from it. Build it and they will come is inherently flawed, IMO.

I agree with all of this. I think the city will need more major projects sometime soon (5-10 year timeframe), and that there will be a cost if the transportation system falls further behind, but I don't think extra construction of transportation infrastructure could significantly speed up growth beyond what's happening right now.

I think we've already seen a bit of a shift. Around 2010 there was very little on the table. Now there are at least 3 major projects. Cogswell is another if we want to look a bit more widely at any publicly-led infrastructure improvements.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Similar to anywhere else online, here included, Reddit can be a terrible echo chamber at times, particularly in municipality-focused subreddits like r/Halifax, r/Toronto, or wider range subreddits like r/Canada. It's where you get the most leakage of users from places like Facebook or local newspaper comment sections. Like anything it's just a matter of overpowering these negative viewpoints with more rational viewpoints.

I agree that Halifax probably needs to improve some of its road network but the issue I take with this thread is that it seems geared to the idea that building transportation links will generate local growth when really the opposite should be true - transport should be built to accommodate growth, not to expect it to be created from it. Build it and they will come is inherently flawed, IMO.

My thinking when I started this thread is to discuss what is needed to help the city grow so that everyone is not in gridlock. Building those missing connections will do that.

Originally Posted by JHikka

This would be better worded as 'Here are my thoughts on what would be needed to accommodate a population of 1 million people'

So, if that is the case, what are your thoughts?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My thinking when I started this thread is to discuss what is needed to help the city grow so that everyone is not in gridlock. Building those missing connections will do that.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, if that is the case, what are your thoughts?

It's a fine idea for a thread but cities grow with things like housing strategies, proper land-use policies for developers, and generally enticing residents within the CMA and HRM with various public policy items, including transportation items to make commuting and travelling within the city easier for its residents. Nobody moves to a city because one has a six-lane highway instead of a four-lane highway; they move to a city because of job prospects, housing prospects, and general quality of life.

What you're essentially proposing in the OP is that people will look more towards Halifax as a 'big city' by having things like subways or building new highways - these are items that are done when city growth is trended and anticipated for. What makes a 'big city' big is by more natural things, like livable neighbourhoods, consumer items and places of businesses, and a local economy and environment encouraging to its residents. The highways and subways can come once there's enough inherent demand from residents, not from presumed growth after the fact.

I don't really have any issue with any of your ideas per se, just in how the conversation is framed in the OP.

[Good Baklava]

Some of these additions would be needed as we inch closer to 1 million, but transportation projects definitely can’t drive population growth.

I could get behind a small northwest arm crossing, most peninsular cities have crossings from multiple angles (take Manhattan, Vancouver, Instanbul, Chongqing). Compared to even larger cities, Halifax is not that constrained with two bridges on the Dartmouth side. Rather, I think the issue is addressing other angles. I like the idea of a bridge bus lane, but a new LRT crossing seems overkill when the existing ferries do a very similar route just fine.

Generally speaking, the age of freeways cutting through the city is over; it would not make Halifax more modern even by a highway-loving American standard. The last thing Halifax wants is a repeat of Cogswell, and Toronto is debating about what to do with the Gardiner. Worldwide, downtown freeways are either being torn down or buried.

While I disagree about how population growth is worded, and whether any of these changes constitute modernity, or if modernity is even a valid end goal, I like the enthusiasm and the fact that you brought some bold ideas to the forum.

[someone123]

If I were to design a Northwest Arm crossing it would have pedestrian paths, bike lanes, and 2-3 vehicle lanes (perhaps 1 transit if there are 3). I think having just an active transportation bridge could be good too. It would serve a dual purpose, connecting people on the peninsula side to Fleming Park, and connecting Armdale to the peninsula (Armdale would be walking distance to Dal). I would not do a highway-style bridge with big approaches.

I'm not really sold on the idea that it's guaranteed that the South End folks would all hate an attractive bridge that connects them up with new recreational sites. The Peace Bridge in Calgary or Millennium Bridge in London are somewhat comparable. They are small attractions in their own right. This bridge would run from South St to the park on the other side.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

If I were to design a Northwest Arm crossing it would have pedestrian paths, bike lanes, and 2-3 vehicle lanes (perhaps 1 transit if there are 3). I think having just an active transportation bridge could be good too. It would serve a dual purpose, connecting people on the peninsula side to Fleming Park, and connecting Armdale to the peninsula (Armdale would be walking distance to Dal). I would not do a highway-style bridge with big approaches.

I'm not really sold on the idea that it's guaranteed that the South End folks would all hate an attractive bridge that connects them up with new recreational sites. The Peace Bridge in Calgary or Millennium Bridge in London are somewhat comparable. They are small attractions in their own right. This bridge would run from South St to the park on the other side.

I think a mix of modes is important too, it would keep our hypothetical bridge from being a one-trick pony. Instead of a six-lane monster, I believe quality over quantity is key for the area.

There will always be at least a small cranky crowd to greet every project, but perhaps the better the bridge the warmer its reception will be.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Cogswell is another if we want to look a bit more widely at any publicly-led infrastructure improvements.

Cogswell will be a de-improvement, removing a high-capacity segment of the street network and replacing it with narrowed streets, at-grade intersections and roundabouts. Gridlock will be in the future of downtown if HRM's other initiatives in this area do not kill it first.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by someone123

If I were to design a Northwest Arm crossing it would have pedestrian paths, bike lanes, and 2-3 vehicle lanes (perhaps 1 transit if there are 3). I think having just an active transportation bridge could be good too. It would serve a dual purpose, connecting people on the peninsula side to Fleming Park, and connecting Armdale to the peninsula (Armdale would be walking distance to Dal). I would not do a highway-style bridge with big approaches.

I'm not really sold on the idea that it's guaranteed that the South End folks would all hate an attractive bridge that connects them up with new recreational sites. The Peace Bridge in Calgary or Millennium Bridge in London are somewhat comparable. They are small attractions in their own right. This bridge would run from South St to the park on the other side.

Agree (almost) completely.

I lived in the south end for about half my time in Halifax, but only ever visited the Dingle maybe twice. If there had been a bridge over the NW Arm, I surely would have visited more frequently (at least as often as I went to Point Pleasant).

The bridge itself would be an attraction, with a nice view down the Arm. The walking bridge in Fredericton over the Saint John River, and both of the two new bridges in Moncton over the Petitcodiac have purpose built lookoffs to admire the rivers below. Decorative street lighting would be nice. Halifax could surely do the same.

The bridge should be multimodality, designed for traffic, active transportation and cycling. Any pedestrian walkway should be broad and separated from traffic flow by a barrier. If there are to be bus/HOV lanes though, wouldn't there have to be four lanes (HOV lanes both inbound and outbound)??

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It's a fine idea for a thread but cities grow with things like housing strategies, proper land-use policies for developers, and generally enticing residents within the CMA and HRM with various public policy items, including transportation items to make commuting and travelling within the city easier for its residents. Nobody moves to a city because one has a six-lane highway instead of a four-lane highway; they move to a city because of job prospects, housing prospects, and general quality of life.

What you're essentially proposing in the OP is that people will look more towards Halifax as a 'big city' by having things like subways or building new highways - these are items that are done when city growth is trended and anticipated for. What makes a 'big city' big is by more natural things, like livable neighbourhoods, consumer items and places of businesses, and a local economy and environment encouraging to its residents. The highways and subways can come once there's enough inherent demand from residents, not from presumed growth after the fact.

I don't really have any issue with any of your ideas per se, just in how the conversation is framed in the OP.

Form a roads perspective, my thinking is fix these and the city can support 1 million people without doing any other major roadwork. I do agree that just doing this would not guarantee 1 million people would be here. Things like proper land use and better transit will help get the people to want to come to Halifax. There is so much empty land in the area. If it is not already designated as parkland, then the city should plan how to grow it and build livable neighbourhoods. What the city must avoid is a Toronto/GTA like sprawl with nothing but miles of single family subdivisions.

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Some of these additions would be needed as we inch closer to 1 million, but transportation projects definitely can’t drive population growth.

I could get behind a small northwest arm crossing, most peninsular cities have crossings from multiple angles (take Manhattan, Vancouver, Instanbul, Chongqing). Compared to even larger cities, Halifax is not that constrained with two bridges on the Dartmouth side. Rather, I think the issue is addressing other angles. I like the idea of a bridge bus lane, but a new LRT crossing seems overkill when the existing ferries do a very similar route just fine.

Generally speaking, the age of freeways cutting through the city is over; it would not make Halifax more modern even by a highway-loving American standard. The last thing Halifax wants is a repeat of Cogswell, and Toronto is debating about what to do with the Gardiner. Worldwide, downtown freeways are either being torn down or buried.

While I disagree about how population growth is worded, and whether any of these changes constitute modernity, or if modernity is even a valid end goal, I like the enthusiasm and the fact that you brought some bold ideas to the forum.

Both bridges back up during 'rush hour'. That is why a 3rd crossing and the crossing over the Northwest Arm are needed.

The ferries may do a similar route, but it would be slower than an LRT. This route would also be part of a more expansive RT system.

I am not suggesting a new highway through downtown. The highways I suggest circle both downtowns, but do not go into them. Think of it like Montreal. No major freeway goes through the core, but instead goes close enough to get you to it.

Originally Posted by someone123

If I were to design a Northwest Arm crossing it would have pedestrian paths, bike lanes, and 2-3 vehicle lanes (perhaps 1 transit if there are 3). I think having just an active transportation bridge could be good too. It would serve a dual purpose, connecting people on the peninsula side to Fleming Park, and connecting Armdale to the peninsula (Armdale would be walking distance to Dal). I would not do a highway-style bridge with big approaches.

I'm not really sold on the idea that it's guaranteed that the South End folks would all hate an attractive bridge that connects them up with new recreational sites. The Peace Bridge in Calgary or Millennium Bridge in London are somewhat comparable. They are small attractions in their own right. This bridge would run from South St to the park on the other side.

I agree with the transit, cycling and walking lanes. To ensure it is not gridlocked like the other bridges, it needs at least 2 lanes per side. Anything less is just another recipe for gridlock. Think of it like the MacKey Bridge with additional infrastructure. This would allow Spryfield and Purcells Cove area grow and still not be in gridlock.

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I think a mix of modes is important too, it would keep our hypothetical bridge from being a one-trick pony. Instead of a six-lane monster, I believe quality over quantity is key for the area.

There will always be at least a small cranky crowd to greet every project, but perhaps the better the bridge the warmer its reception will be.

Agreed. Have everything on it and it equally makes people happy and pissed off at the same time.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Cogswell will be a de-improvement, removing a high-capacity segment of the street network and replacing it with narrowed streets, at-grade intersections and roundabouts. Gridlock will be in the future of downtown if HRM's other initiatives in this area do not kill it first.

That interchange is just plain odd. Something should be done with it, but exactly what is not as clear.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Agree (almost) completely.

I lived in the south end for about half my time in Halifax, but only ever visited the Dingle maybe twice. If there had been a bridge over the NW Arm, I surely would have visited more frequently (at least as often as I went to Point Pleasant).

The bridge itself would be an attraction, with a nice view down the Arm. The walking bridge in Fredericton over the Saint John River, and both of the two new bridges in Moncton over the Petitcodiac have purpose built lookoffs to admire the rivers below. Decorative street lighting would be nice. Halifax could surely do the same.

The bridge should be multimodality, designed for traffic, active transportation and cycling. Any pedestrian walkway should be broad and separated from traffic flow by a barrier. If there are to be bus/HOV lanes though, wouldn't there have to be four lanes (HOV lanes both inbound and outbound)??

My thinking would be that an LRT would cross it in it's own lane. The traffic lanes still would need to be at least 2 per side.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The bridge should be multimodality, designed for traffic, active transportation and cycling. Any pedestrian walkway should be broad and separated from traffic flow by a barrier. If there are to be bus/HOV lanes though, wouldn't there have to be four lanes (HOV lanes both inbound and outbound)??

The standard for 3 is to have a reversing lane. In the morning it would be 1 mixed lane in, 1 mixed lane out, and 1 HOV/transit lane in. In the evening the HOV/transit lane switches to outbound. You could even do a 2 lane or 1 lane bridge using this approach (traffic with 0 lanes has to go to the rotary). I think reducing transit and AT times and better accessibility would be the main appeal of this bridge, not diverting tons of traffic to South Street, which can't handle it anyway.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Both bridges back up during 'rush hour'. That is why a 3rd crossing and the crossing over the Northwest Arm are needed.

The ferries may do a similar route, but it would be slower than an LRT. This route would also be part of a more expansive RT system.

While bridge expansions may be needed for a 1 million strong Halifax, congestion during rush hour is not a valid excuse on its own. The objective for level of service on urban highways is “D”, where delays during rush hour and after minor accidents are to be expected. Smooth flowing traffic 24/7 is just not technically feasible.

Again, a uniquely LRT bridge between those two local destinations would be a vanity project. There’s still the more practical option of running faster models of ferry more frequently. The current ferry + walking trip takes 20 minutes, hardly a jaunt. If that LRT were part of a city-wide network, it would be slightly more understandable, but securing an even gradient between Alderney and Scotia Square all while allowing ships to pass underneath would be a technical nightmare.

I appreciate the nod to denser and more livable neighbourhoods, but I’m afraid you’re falling prey to the same line of thought that got Toronto into its current mess. “Bigger roads + abundant land” are the two classic ingredients for sprawl by induced demand. If you advocated for sprawl I wouldn’t be as big of a fan of your proposals, but logically speaking your plans would align more with the outcomes. Right now I think it’s the classic case of “Wanting it all”.

[Citizen_Bane]

There seems to be a broad assumption here that if this city were to double in size (an additional 500K citizens) that the peninsula would require more infrastructure both on the peninsula and to get on and off the peninsula. Let me suggest that even if the peninsula were to attract 100K of the new citizens the other 400k citizens could represent a larger more dense population off the peninsula. Could this mean a newer and perhaps bigger downtown developing somewhere other than on the peninsula? We have bylaws of course and guiding documents such as the Centre Plan to guide development but, given the city's reluctance to build viable transportation options relative to the peninsulas ie. traffic lanes and desirable transit options, developers may just continue the building boom at Larry Uteck and say to heck with the peninsula. Certainly you don't need massive bridges in the Larry Uteck area or in Burnside either for that matter. I don't think that we're in immediate danger of having 500K new citizens descend upon us but I do think there is some risk to our current downtown and that HRM should move sooner than later to build infrastructure that will guide where developers choose to build and citizens choose to live.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Citizen_Bane

There seems to be a broad assumption here that if this city were to double in size (an additional 500K citizens) that the peninsula would require more infrastructure both on the peninsula and to get on and off the peninsula. Let me suggest that even if the peninsula were to attract 100K of the new citizens the other 400k citizens could represent a larger more dense population off the peninsula. Could this mean a newer and perhaps bigger downtown developing somewhere other than on the peninsula? We have bylaws of course and guiding documents such as the Centre Plan to guide development but, given the city's reluctance to build viable transportation options relative to the peninsulas ie. traffic lanes and desirable transit options, developers may just continue the building boom at Larry Uteck and say to heck with the peninsula. Certainly you don't need massive bridges in the Larry Uteck area or in Burnside either for that matter. I don't think that we're in immediate danger of having 500K new citizens descend upon us but I do think there is some risk to our current downtown and that HRM should move sooner than later to build infrastructure that will guide where developers choose to build and citizens choose to live.

We are already seeing this happen with both Burnside/DC and Bayers Lake, not Uteck. It is really a no-brainer for a lot of businesses to want to set up shop there instead of downtown. Right now the office space in those locations is mostly low-rise, but there are already a number of multi-storey structures there with more to come. It is always much less expensive than DT and has the advantage of easy access and plentiful parking. I don't know why anyone would want to be on the peninsula these days with the traffic/parking idiocy being orchestrated by HRM and the arcane rules around development that have been imposed. Unless you are dealing with govt or universities there is really little reason to be DT now. Once the DT loses a big law firm or two and a bank HQ, it will really start to devolve. If the govt starts moving to these outer locations for their offices, the end will be near for DT for anything other than a tourist location in the summer.

[IanWatson]

Do we want to bring the population to 1 million? Seems to me like Halifax has a pretty good thing going these days as a mid-sized, regional city with steady, moderate growth.