Crossing Halifax Harbour

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I lived in Spryfield for a few years wile going to Dal and always marveled how close the two are by way the crow flies relative to the way the road winds.

It's amazing to think about what a bridge over the NW arm could do for an area like Spryfield. It would become a very desirable place to live for many.

[ILoveHalifax]

I think the Northwest Arm is among the most beautiful parts of any city in Canada.
I wonder if some sort of an iconic design might work for an Arm bridge. It could add to the beauty rather than take away from it.

[fenwick16]

There are new viewplane bylaws being planned for the Northwest Arm that will probably prevent a Northwest Arm bridge from being built anytime in the future. However, I think a tunnel under the Arm would work and there would be less opposition.

PS: I voted other - I would pick a Northwest Arm tunnel which would be a cheaper option and encourage growth to the west of Halifax.

I posted a drawing (below) that I did a few months ago in the other related thread - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...148144&page=14

[MonctonRad]

I think a good question would be "where would a NW Arm crossing be located?"

An obvious choice would be South Street, but this would be very close to the Dingle and therefore might not be a favourable option. If you move further south along the arm, the bordering properties get more expensive and the crossing would be further from downtown. Quinpool Road on the other hand is too close to the head of the arm and the Armdale Rotary.

The most effective location for a crossing would therefore be somewhere between South Street and Quinpool Road, possibly Coburg Road as it feeds directly onto Spring Garden Road. What do people think?

[fenwick16]

The problem with a Coburg Road route is that trucks from Halterm Terminals would have to travel along Spring Garden Road to get to it. I think the most direct route from Halterm will be the best route and such a route would still be close to the major population centres around the universities and hospitals.

If you look at the current Northwest Arm Drive, I think it was designed with the intention of crossing the NW Arm near the rail-cut.

[Empire]

McNab Harbour Span 4 lanes

A third harbour crossing connecting the #111 to Barrington St. could make a huge impact.

- Traffic on MacKay and MacDonald would be reduced with the development of the MacNab span
- The span would come in on the east side of the Cunard Centre and stay elevated above the tracks (blue) until it connected to the south end of Barrington St.
- All port truck traffic would take the McNab span
- The LRT woud bring commuters through the rail cut to the Via Station (soon to be expanded)..from there rapid buses would transport commuters to Burnside and Darthmouth Crossing
- the Dartmouth rail line could also bring commuters to a bridge terminal where they would pick up Rapid transit or the Woodside ferry to downtown

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Empire

McNab Harbour Span

This is an interesting idea. The peninsula's end of this crossing would have to be elevated enough to allow cruise ships to pass through. I wonder what view planes this would be offending?

[haligonia]

Originally Posted by Empire

McNab Harbour Span 4 lanes

A third harbour crossing connecting the #111 to Barrington St. could make a huge impact.

- Traffic on MacKay and MacDonald would be reduced with the development of the MacNab span
- The span would come in on the east side of the Cunard Centre and stay elevated above the tracks (blue) until it connected to the south end of Barrington St.
- All port truck traffic would take the McNab span
- The LRT woud bring commuters through the rail cut to the Via Station (soon to be expanded)..from there rapid buses would transport commuters to Burnside and Darthmouth Crossing
- the Dartmouth rail line could also bring commuters to a bridge terminal where they would pick up Rapid transit or the Woodside ferry to downtown

I actually like this quite a bit. It seems close to Geroge's Island, but if the towers are located well it could work.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's a bit incorrect to present transit as an alternative way to spend bridge money, however. The fact is that the HDBC are the ones who would build a third crossing. They can finance it themselves largely from tolls and they are not involved in providing transit services. A regional transit authority could fix this problem.

True to a degree. At the end of the day though, the money is all coming from the same place (the residents and businesses of HRM). User pay systems like tolls are more politically feasible, especially for infrastructure like bridges where people are already conditioned to pay tolls. Any HRM tax hike to net more cash for public transit, even if it was something small like $25 or $50 per property, would no doubt be more controversial and draw negative attention.

[Keith P.]

While the financial models are quite different, if you look at the Cobequid Pass, cars pay $4 and commercial trucks pay $3 per axle, so the toll is $15 for an 18-wheeler. That project makes a fortune and has been quite profitable. While the cost of the bridge is likely significantly more, it also does not need to make a profit but just break even. With proper traffic rules requiring trucks to use it rather than the downtown surface streets it likely could be feasible.

[halifaxboyns]

I think empire's example is interesting, but I see a few problems. Namely the bridge height so ships (cruise and container) could clear it and the location of the possible bridge supports. Based on the map, it looks like one of the docking burths would become unusable. I suspect that's being a bit nit-picky, but the routing makes sense.

My only problem with LRT going through a 3rd crossing (either bridge or tunnel) that while it would provide good service to the new/existing subdivisions in Dartmouth to get to the downtown office core (Portland Hills, Portland Estates, etc.) you'd have to literally back track along the circ to get to places like Burnside, Mic Mac Mall and Dartmouth Crossing. This may make serving those locations with an LRT not so good in terms of time to get there - which could make the service unattractive.

I certainly agree that the NW Arm crossing should go ahead, but I'm not sure how it could all tie into the NW Arm Drive. There would be a lot of expensive expropriation required (including the shopping centre) to get the route through - not just dealing with the pond that's at the end of the route. Not saying it's bad...just will be difficult.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I think empire's example is interesting, but I see a few problems. Namely the bridge height so ships (cruise and container) could clear it and the location of the possible bridge supports. Based on the map, it looks like one of the docking burths would become unusable. I suspect that's being a bit nit-picky, but the routing makes sense.

My only problem with LRT going through a 3rd crossing (either bridge or tunnel) that while it would provide good service to the new/existing subdivisions in Dartmouth to get to the downtown office core (Portland Hills, Portland Estates, etc.) you'd have to literally back track along the circ to get to places like Burnside, Mic Mac Mall and Dartmouth Crossing. This may make serving those locations with an LRT not so good in terms of time to get there - which could make the service unattractive.

I certainly agree that the NW Arm crossing should go ahead, but I'm not sure how it could all tie into the NW Arm Drive. There would be a lot of expensive expropriation required (including the shopping centre) to get the route through - not just dealing with the pond that's at the end of the route. Not saying it's bad...just will be difficult.

The 3rd bridge height should be similar to the MacDonald at the shore approach. Container ships clear the MacDonald near mid span. Cruise ships may have to go around the north side of George's Island to dock. They then would have to be turned when leaving so they can go back around the island and then go under the bridge at mid span.

MacDonald height
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax...cbp=12,90,,0,0

[RyeJay]

You say Georges Island... and I say hey look a free bridge support!

No.
Not really. Though I'd enjoy an enthused response from Heritage Trust, after they pull their tongues out of their throats.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I think empire's example is interesting, but I see a few problems. Namely the bridge height so ships (cruise and container) could clear it and the location of the possible bridge supports. Based on the map, it looks like one of the docking burths would become unusable. I suspect that's being a bit nit-picky, but the routing makes sense.

Not nit-picky. You're pointing out financial obsticles. No serious bridge proposal will go through without problem solving in these cases.

As far as I can conceive, to avoid that mess you've illustrated the bridge would have to maintain its height further into, or rather above, the peninsula with an exit/entrance connecting somewhere on Inglis St.

I'm not sure how innovative the architecture would have to aspire, but perhaps a large property somewhere on this street could serve as a suitable connection for this bridge. I keep thinking of how much space is needed for the bridges we currently have.

[halifaxboyns]

It took me a few minutes to find it; but here was the information report from a 2010 Regional Council meeting that send Councillor Uteck up in arms about a 3rd harbour crossing. The grade profiles are insane for the actual bridge crossing...talk about blocking a view!

One thing I will say for the tunnel concept they show in the report is that if a tunnel was done for the NW arm crossing, it appears that it could easily connect to the tunnel system depicted.

I'm not sure if anyone else is paying attention to the base drawing very well (when I review plans, I pay attention to details so I don't end up approving stuff that wasn't supposed to be there) - but did you notice that there appear to be rail tracks where the current Farmers Market is located? Must be an old base map layer from when the tracks were still there and now have been removed.

[Empire]

Great find, I like the tunnel concept more. With the bridge, the onshore support wipes out Pier 21.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Empire

Great find, I like the tunnel concept more. With the bridge, the onshore support wipes out Pier 21.

The tunnel appears (I'm guessing) to have had some forethought about a future NW arm connection. I was thinking about the whole issue of cost recovery for a tunnel or a bridge, especially since the CBC is doing a series on infrastructure starting off with the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto. There was also an interesting show on CNBC this past weekend on rebuilding the US's infrastructure.

I am not familiar enough with HRM's taxing powers under the HRM charter, but I wonder if (in addition to tolls for the structure) there could be a form of levy or property tax applied to properties on the peinsula and in Dartmouth for the crossing? The same for the NW arm? This way, any new subdivisions built next to or within proximity of the crossing could then have to pay into the cost of building it?

[RyeJay]

I should check out those series.

The levy idea you mentioned: would you think it fair to apply it across the board, to even existing subdivisions--or are you strictly speaking in the sense of new developments that are now benefiting (and in many cases only possible) because of the new crossing?

For a harbour crossing in the form of a bridge, I surmise a connection on the peninsula as far inward as the corner of South Street and Queen:

The height of the bridge would avoid all infrastructure along the southern waterfront. Furthermore, Georges Island would be untoched and unblocked in terms of a view via the Citadel. In addition to this view preservation are those of McNabs Island and the mouth of our harbour which meets the Atlantic Ocean. An immediate complication would be the acquisition of a small number of properties on the downward slope of South Street, toward Barrington, as this is where the peninsular bridge connection would be...



The arm crossing, I'm not sure about. I think I'll admit that this particular area of the HRM is the place I know least about. Where would appropriate connection points be? I'm guessing the further south, the further away from the rotary, the more practical?...

[halifaxboyns]

Based on the drawing you have, I find it difficult to believe that the view of George's Island won't be impacted. I found this picture from google maps and it's very likely it will be impacted.

The levy idea would depend on how HRM's taxing authority would be based - I'd have to check the charter. I suspect a levy wouldn't work because you couldn't apply it to subdivisions already approved; levies typically can only be collected as development occurs. So it would only work if all existing subdivisions started seeing redevelopment...plus with a levy, the collection process can be slow (depending on the pace of development).

A property tax might work better (such as a certain percentage increase over a period of time to help fund a bridge/tunnel), which I would suggest should apply to all HRM since everyone will have an equal opportunity to use these facilities.

The south street idea is interesting but it require the bridge go up and over the farmers market. If you look at the land necessary for the end of the McDonald and McKay, it would be a huge impact in terms of taking out existing houses. I shuder to think that the westin could be impacted or need to be taken down or Cornwallis Park removed, considering how wide the end of the bridges is in terms of supports and land required.

In terms of the mainland side, a NW arm crossing will be problematic regardless of whether it's a tunnel or a bridge. The first problem is that Purcell's Cove road is no more than a 2 lane country road, so how will that be dealt with (would an interchange really be needed?). Then there is how the road would connect to 'mainland ring road' (NW Arm Drive). Because that road was never really extended, the ring is 'broken' because you would need to expropriate the shopping centre (where Sobeys is), homes and get around Catamaran Pond to get the most direct routing. Then of course there is the connection at Herring Cove Road - if you too the most direct line, you'd now have a multi-intersection with HCR and Williams Lake Road. So it would take a lot of work.

The benefit of this connection though would be that the land around Williams Lake and Colpitt Lake has been set aside as 'urban reserve' for future urban growth, so if a crossing was planned, in this case a levy could be applied (in addition to a property tax) since any future subdivisions would likely have direct benefit to this peninsula connection and the connection to a ring road system.

Don't get me wrong - I like that you are thinking of routing, the crossing has to go somewhere, at some point. But sometimes people forget about how land intensive a bridge can be in terms of the approaches and intersections, unless I'm miss understanding where you expected the actual bridge to begin. Where would the physical bridge start on the Halifax side?

[RyeJay]

You're understanding my brainstorming. You're correct that a number of houses would have to be demolished on the downward slope of South Street, going toward Barrington Street. The corner of South Street and Queen Street is essentially my proposed bridge connection; the sudden downward slope of South Street would offer room for bridge elevation--enough to completely avoid the historic Westin Hotel, while not being so tall as to block the Citadel's view of McNabs.

Considering the picture you've provided of the Citadel's view of Georges Island, a bridge could completely avoid Georges Island. For the hell of it, just for imagination's sake, if we were to copy and paste one of our other bridges to this conceptual location...would it be close enough to having enough height? I'm betting yes.

If not, it's just a matter of going higher. We can do that. And given the Citadel view, there is room to go higher and still not impact the view of McNabs.

Unfortunately, our bridge options are severely limited. It's a complicated area for this kind of infrastructure. We need more brainstorming.