Port of Halifax, Windsor St Exchange upgrades

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Half-Axed

Yeah it’s a tough call. I wrote my impressions as I tried to visualize the paths I would take through it and I think it would work for me…but I’m very comfortable entering and exiting roundabouts. And like I said I find Haligonians tend to be very timid about merging in moving traffic without coming to a near stop first. I fear you’re probably right and it’ll be just as if there were still stop signs.

Other roundabouts in the city seem to work fairly well most times when I use them. I’ve never used the Armdale one at rush hour though - is it any better now than years ago?

I don't find that Haligonians are as timid in roundabouts as you suggest - as mentioned many tend to fly through the Uteck ones. My main worry there is that some sections necessitate exiting from the left (inside) lane of the circle, and there's a possibility of getting hit by an overconfident motorist entering the circle in the right lane who doesn't understand that you can exit from the left lane. Hasn't happened to me yet, though (knock on wood)...

For Armdale, my only experience was trying to enter from Chebucto Road to go to Herring Cove Road during afternoon rush hour. It took forever to get into the circle because of the constant traffic coming from Quinpool.

Rush hour heavy traffic is where roundabouts show their weaknesses if you're not in the main stream of traffic, IMHO. You can get hung out to dry at entrances that are not in the main flow. On the other hand it may be better for overall traffic flow for the main commuter routes, I can't say.

[atbw]

One glaring thing I note as a cyclist is that both options are disconnected from existing cycling infrastructure <1km away.

The Windsor Street lanes end 850m from the current exchange, and the Chain of Lakes Trail terminates on Joe Howe about 650m from the interchange. Whether or not they build these connections will be the difference between it being useful cycling infrastructure that lets people get to and through the area, or if they’ll languish in uselessness.

For context, if they can connect the two, you could go from Windsor Street to Bedford, up the COLT, or off into Africville. There’s currently no “AAA” option to let cyclists on or off the peninsula onto the mainland, and it’s a huge hinderance to anybody other than Lycra-clad dentists.

[Empire]

I think the irony in this debate is that perhaps what is needed to replace the Windsor St. exchange is the Cogswell St. Interchange design.
The Windsor St. exchange needs a 2-lane overpass from the Bedford Hwy. to the bridge, a 2-lane overpass from Windsor St. to the bridge merging with the traffic from the Bedford Hwy. and a 2-lane overpass from Windsor St. to Bedford merging with traffic from the bridge. Traffic from Lady Hammond Rd. would go under these overpasses direct to the Bedford Hwy. Bayne St. should be utilized for traffic coming from the MacKay and access to the MacKay from Ceres would require another ramp. All other requirements would be shoehorned around the base routes. BRT, bike, rolling lanes etc. The big issue is that more property wasn’t obtained to accommodate for what was inevitable.

The roundabouts in option (A) will create gridlock. When the Mic Mac Rotary was removed and the appropriate ramps / overpasses constructed the traffic backup that used to start at Hwy. 118 was completely eliminated.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Empire

The roundabouts in option (A) will create gridlock. When the Mic Mac Rotary was removed and the appropriate ramps / overpasses constructed the traffic backup that used to start at Hwy. 118 was completely eliminated.

Exactly. Suddenly, it was as if that vile vehicular circle of hell had never existed. The daily nightmare just vanished. It was like magic.

I frequently wonder whether, in today's feverish rush to drop roundabouts everywhere, there's no institutional memory of such things.

Roundabouts can be useful in certain circumstances, but they can't fix every traffic problem and simply aren't appropriate everywhere. In this case, I'm having real difficulty imagining streams of container-laden trucks from Ceres negotiating what appear to be relatively small roundabouts. Wasn't fixing Ceres truck traffic problems supposed to be one of the main drivers of this whole project?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

I frequently wonder whether, in today's feverish rush to drop roundabouts everywhere, there's no institutional memory of such things.

I also wonder the same.

The cynical part of me imagines that deep thinking in these situations seems to be lacking, and they just seem to randomly choose whatever are the popular shiny things that seem cool at the time, but may not work out to be the best afterwards, once the buzz wears off.

This appears to be the case there. I think they need to hire Empire to work out their problems for them...

[Keith P.]

It is truly bizarre. I too wonder who is making these decisions, surely not the province. They have the example of the new 102/103 interchange to look at as well, with both an overpass and a cleverly-designed underpass/tunnel to consider. Yet they propose roundabouts or signalized intersections where left turns are required.

[Half-Axed]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't find that Haligonians are as timid in roundabouts as you suggest - as mentioned many tend to fly through the Uteck ones.
...
Rush hour heavy traffic is where roundabouts show their weaknesses if you're not in the main stream of traffic, IMHO. You can get hung out to dry at entrances that are not in the main flow. On the other hand it may be better for overall traffic flow for the main commuter routes, I can't say.

Your final paragraph is what I meant - when the circle is flowing and I see a gap I will merge into it. I find too many people will stop and wait until there is a much larger gap than needed before they nose their way in. It's analogous to people who won't take a left turn when oncoming traffic is two hundred metres away.

In any case, I like roundabouts and I think this one does address a few issues - but you guys are probably right and the crunch at this exchange will be too much for one.

[Half-Axed]

Originally Posted by Empire

The Windsor St. exchange needs a 2-lane overpass from the Bedford Hwy. to the bridge,

That really jumped out at me - there is an overpass going in the other direction (which I first thought was in both direction but, sadly, was mistaken.) Seems a strange exclusion.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is truly bizarre. I too wonder who is making these decisions, surely not the province. They have the example of the new 102/103 interchange to look at as well, with both an overpass and a cleverly-designed underpass/tunnel to consider. Yet they propose roundabouts or signalized intersections where left turns are required.

I keep wondering what the next "improvement" will be. Maybe curb extensions and speed bumps on roundabouts...

[Half-Axed]

Screenshots of the two options to pore over:

[Half-Axed]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

I keep wondering what the next "improvement" will be. Maybe curb extensions and speed bumps on roundabouts...

A bike lane all the way around the outer edge of the circle, separated from the cars by bollards anywhere that isn't an entrance or exit.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Empire

The roundabouts in option (A) will create gridlock. When the Mic Mac Rotary was removed and the appropriate ramps / overpasses constructed the traffic backup that used to start at Hwy. 118 was completely eliminated.

A large rotary is very different for traffic flow than a small roundabout though. Rotaries work well for low traffic, high speed interchanges, roundabouts for higher traffic, low speed interchanges.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OliverD

A large rotary is very different for traffic flow than a small roundabout though. Rotaries work well for low traffic, high speed interchanges, roundabouts for higher traffic, low speed interchanges.

I would disagree. The tiny roundabouts at Agricola/Cunard and North Park/Cogswell work well because volumes are never great. This intersection will need to handle 100,000 vehicles a day. They will simply be constantly clogged.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I would disagree. The tiny roundabouts at Agricola/Cunard and North Park/Cogswell work well because volumes are never great. This intersection will need to handle 100,000 vehicles a day. They will simply be constantly clogged.

I agree. Let's not lose site of the fact that Halifax has timid drivers. In order to make a roundabout work with the highest volume in Metro, motorists would have to advance when their opportunity presents itself. I do not see this happening. Most motorists will hesitate when they should accelerate to merge from an off ramp or change lanes etc. etc. It would be interesting to find documentation on the switch from the MicMac rotary to the present workable model. That was a bold move and it worked!

[Dartguard]

So the discussion has found us back to my issue that the city is not thinking big enough. Far more talented forum contributors than me can probably blue sky an actual plan imagining that the CERES terminal was cleared but the space utilized for Northwest Halifax Transportation, stadium, Africaville remediation or Marina idea's. Try to imagine that space without the industrial constraints and more importantly why isn't the City doing the same?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Half-Axed

Your final paragraph is what I meant - when the circle is flowing and I see a gap I will merge into it. I find too many people will stop and wait until there is a much larger gap than needed before they nose their way in. It's analogous to people who won't take a left turn when oncoming traffic is two hundred metres away.

In any case, I like roundabouts and I think this one does address a few issues - but you guys are probably right and the crunch at this exchange will be too much for one.

I think you're missing the point in that there is no gap when the main traffic flow is coming from one place and the roundabout is the choking point.

In the example I gave, trying to enter the Armdale roundabout from Chebucto Road during afternoon rush hour, 99% of the traffic is coming from Quinpool, the roundabout slows it down and tightens it up, so it's bumper to bumper. Rules of roundabouts are that you don't enter until it's clear. Even if you are an aggressive driver there are still no gaps to fill (Note: by aggressive, I mean that you try to fit into a space with no margin of error, depending on other drivers to slow down to avoid an accident), there are no spaces available, unless somebody comes from Joseph Howe, SMB, or Herring Cove, and then exits to Chebucto, creating a gap.

FWIW, if you do what you describe in some sections of the Larry Uteck roundabouts, you can create the situation I described where you may run directly into a car exiting from the inside lane.

For example, you are coming west along Larry Uteck about to enter the circle. Let's say there are cars in the inside (left) lane and cars in the right lane with a gap. You see the gap so you gun it to fit in just as a car from the left lane attempts to enter Nine Mile Drive. Boom... then you curse out the driver who cut you off, even though he was correctly following the rules of the roundabout.

All of those 'timid' drivers who were 'afraid' to merge 'properly' by not entering the circle when there was traffic coming were actually following the rules. The yield sign means yield to traffic in the circle, not find a gap and gun it. Not to mention that there are crosswalks right at the exit of the circle, so if you are trying to cut your merges closely just as the car stops for a pedestrian while it is still in the circle... *bang*... and your insurance rates go up...

To bring it back to the actual situation, I think in general those roundabouts tend to work fairly well in that most people negotiate them flawlessly and understand what they need to do. Some are more aggressive than others, but that's normal everywhere. I don't really see anybody stopping in fear and clogging everything up... which is why I balked at the idea that Halifax drivers are sooo timid and don't know how to negotiate roundabouts.

...But it's also clear that, by design, roundabouts can work well in some circumstances but not so well in others. The traffic experts should be able to figure that out, so I'm hoping that they don't bugger this one up and cause traffic headaches for Haligonians for another 40 years...

JMHO.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

So the discussion has found us back to my issue that the city is not thinking big enough. Far more talented forum contributors than me can probably blue sky an actual plan imagining that the CERES terminal was cleared but the space utilized for Northwest Halifax Transportation, stadium, Africaville remediation or Marina idea's. Try to imagine that space without the industrial constraints and more importantly why isn't the City doing the same?

Bingo!

[toones]

Anyone know what the brown shape in the render is meant to represent?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

So the discussion has found us back to my issue that the city is not thinking big enough. Far more talented forum contributors than me can probably blue sky an actual plan imagining that the CERES terminal was cleared but the space utilized for Northwest Halifax Transportation, stadium, Africaville remediation or Marina idea's. Try to imagine that space without the industrial constraints and more importantly why isn't the City doing the same?

At the time Ceres was built, it wasn't a bad idea. Business was growing, Halterm was constrained and could not grow, and the Basin seemed to be a good site. Now with the super-jumbo ships unable to get under the bridges, it is limited in what it can handle. The easiest way to deal with the issue would be for Halterm to handle the jumbos but to require all arriving and departing containers there to move via rail. Some of those would be to/from Ceres, which could then put them on the smaller ships for movement by water elsewhere or onto trucks for local/regional shipments. Simply eliminating the use of trucks for Halterm would not be all that difficult but of course the management there does not want that limitation. However it is the only cost-effective solution.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

...But it's also clear that, by design, roundabouts can work well in some circumstances but not so well in others. The traffic experts should be able to figure that out, so I'm hoping that they don't bugger this one up and cause traffic headaches for Haligonians for another 40 years...

JMHO.

You're up late, Mark.

I do not like roundabouts generally and find the ones at Uteck poorly designed for reasons you cite. The ones at Cunard and at North Park are better though, and work OK because they are simply designed better. The one problem they all have in the city, though, is pedestrian access. You are so busy looking for other vehicles trying to run into you that your attention is distracted from the multiple crosswalks in every entry/exit leg. They are extremely hazardous for pedestrians and IMO the crosswalks should not be located inside the roundabout itself as they are in these but rather be some distance away on the actual streets themselves.

A big part of the problem is that HRM Planning is populated by a large number of young, inexperienced planners who have had the idea drilled into their heads at school that cars are bad and must be eliminated/discouraged as much as possible, along with the corollary that roundabouts are good for discouraging car use because they are slow and create congestion. Hence the sentiment among some that more roundabouts are always the solution to whatever traffic problem exists. They are not.