Highway 107 Upgrades (Burnside Expressway) | U/C

[atbw]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Question for the avid cyclists on this forum: Would the $7 million be better spent on this active trail, or the Macdonald Bridge flyover. Same price, different projects.

In my opinion, the active trail would be better value for the money in that it spans a longer distance, creates a way to safely cycle from Sackville to Burnside (which doesn't exist currently), and the timing is right for it to be the cheapest and have the best result, being built in conjunction with the roadway.

But... I'm not an avid cyclist. What say you?

MacDonald bridge by far, as it includes a bunch of work to Wyse and North to make it convenient to use, and serves the biggest population base. There's not a ton of cycling infrastructure in Sackville or Burnside, so this one doesn't really make sense. Like others have said, it makes the most sense to build the network from the core out, so the cyclists have somewhere to ride instead of getting dumped onto the streets.

The best solution for this would be for space to be set aside so it can be added when we have the money.

[Jstaleness]

There has been activity at the Akerley S turns for a while now as they put the equipment together. One excavator came on 3 different flat bed trailers. This am there are excavators breaking up some of the rocks. Work has begun!

[OldDartmouthMark]

It's about time! I might actually get to see this happen in my lifetime...

[Dengler Avenue]

I just looked at the map in #182 again. It’s about time to establish a collector-express system on the 102 because weaving will be bad...

[Jstaleness]

No photo updates or anything, but work is continuing at a good pace here. Just guessing but I'd say they have a disposal of about 7 large excavators, 4 large dump trucks (maybe more) and seem to be making good progress. As the locals know this part of Nova Scotia isn't friendly for earth movement. There is a lot of rock in there, but like I said they are getting it moved quickly.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Not sure if this has been posted here before:

https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default...90430rc172.pdf

[Dengler Avenue]

Good find, Mark! Thanks for sharing.

[Keith P.]

More roundabouts. Guaranteed to drive auto insurance rates even higher.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

More roundabouts. Guaranteed to drive auto insurance rates even higher.

I know, you got love traffic lights The more roundabouts the more drivers will know how to use them (:

Also, I don't think I have ever saw an accident at a roundabout. Seems to be a lot on the harbour bridges though, almost every day. Maybe we shouldn't have bridges. :wink:

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

I know, you got love traffic lights The more roundabouts the more drivers will know how to use them (:

Not the ones built here. They are too small and tight and as a result the entry lanes are constricted.

Also, I don't think I have ever saw an accident at a roundabout. Seems to be a lot on the harbour bridges though, almost every day. Maybe we shouldn't have bridges. :wink:

You clearly don't spend much time at the ones on Uteck. The document talked about an interchange, but these are not that, since an interchange is grade-separated. These are bean-counter specials and undesirable.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Good find, Mark! Thanks for sharing.

No problem, I stumbled upon it when looking for something else (as usual), so it seemed like a good idea to post it here...

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Not the ones built here. They are too small and tight and as a result the entry lanes are constricted.



You clearly don't spend much time at the ones on Uteck. The document talked about an interchange, but these are not that, since an interchange is grade-separated. These are bean-counter specials and undesirable.

I don't have a problem with them, I think they work fine!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

I don't have a problem with them, I think they work fine!

I kinda feel the same way, though I understand Keith's point about some of them being tight and double-lane. They work great when people understand how they are supposed to work and follow the rules, but are a bit touch-and-go at times, especially now that people are accustomed to them and tend to go through them at higher speed (while those not comfortable with them are hesitant). When people become careless and make wrong assumptions is when problems occur.

But... you can say that about any intersection, as I've seen quite a few red-light runners in the past several years, among other foibles. IMHO the problem is more about bad drivers than it is about whether it's a roundabout or a traditional intersection.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

More roundabouts. Guaranteed to drive auto insurance rates even higher.

Hardly. The vast majority of accidents at roundabouts are fender benders without injuries. Can't say the same for traditional intersections.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I kinda feel the same way, though I understand Keith's point about some of them being tight and double-lane. They work great when people understand how they are supposed to work and follow the rules, but are a bit touch-and-go at times, especially now that people are accustomed to them and tend to go through them at higher speed (while those not comfortable with them are hesitant). When people become careless and make wrong assumptions is when problems occur.

But... you can say that about any intersection, as I've seen quite a few red-light runners in the past several years, among other foibles. IMHO the problem is more about bad drivers than it is about whether it's a roundabout or a traditional intersection.

Exactly.

Which is why I think the use of roundabouts are certain intersections is a no-brainer. They increase traffic flow and reduce injuries. And they're generally cheaper than signalized intersections too.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OliverD

Hardly. The vast majority of accidents at roundabouts are fender benders without injuries. Can't say the same for traditional intersections.

Fender benders still cause insurance claims and drive up rates as a result. They only work well in light traffic areas, since in heavy traffic they reduce flow dramatically. Typical bureaucratic response to push something that does those things because they are cheaper to build.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Y'know, it would be interesting to see the actual stats of MVAs at roundabouts vs traditional intersections, weighted for traffic volume. Does anybody know where that kind of data could be found?

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Fender benders still cause insurance claims and drive up rates as a result. They only work well in light traffic areas, since in heavy traffic they reduce flow dramatically. Typical bureaucratic response to push something that does those things because they are cheaper to build.

Injuries caused by more serious collisions are a much bigger expense than fixing fender benders.

[Querce]

Roundabouts are also better for traffic flow, since they allow for continuous flow from all directions, rather than having to break it up into signalized chunks

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Querce

Roundabouts are also better for traffic flow, since they allow for continuous flow from all directions, rather than having to break it up into signalized chunks

They do not. In fact they do just the reverse. The Armdale roundabout at rush hour is virtually impossible to enter since outbound traffic from Quinpool and Chebucto clogs it.