Crossing Halifax Harbour

[Jstaleness]

I am curious to see what others believe are the best ways to deal with the growing issue of Crossing Halifax Harbour.

[-Harlington-]

I'd say that short term better transit/ferry service is a must

Long term, some sort of third crossing is most likely going to be needed at some point whether it be bridge or tunnel .

But ferries are something i think could be utilized a little better

[Josh M]

No need for a third bridge but the MacDonald bridge has to be replaced

[halifaxboyns]

I'm concerned that adding a 3rd bridge would facilitate an increase to sprawling suburban development.

If an LRT system is designed, I would be happy to see the money spent on a tunnel only for transit (bus and LRT) and leave the existing bridge capacity for cars/trucks.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Exactly.

A crossing for transit would be much more efficient since two lanes could easily suffice and it would actually make the area better whereas constantly expanding road capacity only makes the HRM worse.

Besides, the brides are only nearing capacity in terms of the number of vehicles that can cross, not in terms of the number of people who can cross. Having a higher percentage of people cross using transit will allow the existing bridges to serve many tens of thousands more people per day.

[someone123]

I agree that it's bad to promote suburban sprawl, but there are two factors at play here that people tend to conflate:

1) Sprawliness of city. Basically this is % car traffic and acres of land used per person.
2) Population growth in the metropolitan area.

As a city grows it needs more roads and more bridges. There is no avoiding this. You can increase transit ridership somewhat but some people need to use cars, there will still be bus traffic, truck traffic, and newly developed areas need to be connected to the older parts of the city. Note that Paris, a densely populated city, has more roads and bridges than Halifax, which is much sprawlier.

Halifax will need more road capacity onto the peninsula even if it builds more transit. When the MacKay was built the city only had about 220,000 people. Soon it will have 500,000 people. Even if we double or triple transit use over the next 10-20 years we will need more roads. Even if we use the existing bridges more efficiently we will need more roads.

The correct way to look at this is in terms of increasing transit modal share so that maybe we will look at 2,000 new cars per year instead of 3,000, but the cars will still be there. The idea that Halifax is behind so it needs to halt road construction is based on horribly oversimplified assumptions and following that plan would have very bad consequences for the city, particularly if there's no good plan for a transit system, which there isn't right now.

[halifaxboyns]

For me, if a tunnel is used for transit only - then you really wouldn't need more than two lanes, which should reduce the cost. On top of which, any LRT could operate as a track in the 'road' type system with proper safety measures put in.

If the tunnel entrance started out in the parking lots near the dockyard, this could provide an excellent transit hub location (despite being so close to downtown). Vehicles would then enter and exit at this point and be able to continue into downtown along whatever the reworked street configuration would be, once the Cogswell Interchage is removed. The exit on the Dartmouth side might be a little tricky, but could end up right at the Dartmouth Sportsplex lot. The entry points would of course be secured so non-transit vehicles wouldn't get in.

The only thing that will be a negative is the number of transit trip opportunities along Gottingen and Barrington Street (from North to Cornwallis) would likely decrease dramatically. But the Gottingen Street component could be offset by a streetcar on Agricola (long term) but I'm not sure about Barrington. My memory of the stops along there (that are the inbound stops for buses from Dartmouth) is that they weren't used very much, except for the stop by the bridge to allow connections to the 4/2. This could be moved down to the dockyard with a route change for the 4/2.

[someone123]

They're not going to do a $1B+ tunnel for only transit. Even a transit-only lane in an expensive tunnel is a stretch. They did have a bus lane in the 6 lane bridge plan however. With a third crossing it might be possible to get a dedicated one-way lane on the Macdonald. Because of the weight issues I'm not sure LRT could go on it and LRT out to Eastern Passage is not very attractive.

Part of the purpose of the proposed third crossing is to get truck traffic out of the South End. Another useful reason for building the bridge is to improve connections to Eastern Passage/Cole Harbour. I think this is a useful improvement over the prospect of putting more suburban development north of the city. The Spryfield area is also underdeveloped but would be easy to serve with transit if there were some improvements. Actually some people there could practically walk to work if they built a small bridge over the Northwest Arm -- this should be another priority.

[alps]

Light rail, with a dedicated bridge or tunnel, should be prioritized long before any additional road capacity.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree that it's bad to promote suburban sprawl, but there are two factors at play here that people tend to conflate:

1) Sprawliness of city. Basically this is % car traffic and acres of land used per person.
2) Population growth in the metropolitan area.

As a city grows it needs more roads and more bridges. There is no avoiding this. You can increase transit ridership somewhat but some people need to use cars, there will still be bus traffic, truck traffic, and newly developed areas need to be connected to the older parts of the city. Note that Paris, a densely populated city, has more roads and bridges than Halifax, which is much sprawlier.

Halifax will need more road capacity onto the peninsula even if it builds more transit. When the MacKay was built the city only had about 220,000 people. Soon it will have 500,000 people. Even if we double or triple transit use over the next 10-20 years we will need more roads. Even if we use the existing bridges more efficiently we will need more roads.

The correct way to look at this is in terms of increasing transit modal share so that maybe we will look at 2,000 new cars per year instead of 3,000, but the cars will still be there. The idea that Halifax is behind so it needs to halt road construction is based on horribly oversimplified assumptions and following that plan would have very bad consequences for the city, particularly if there's no good plan for a transit system, which there isn't right now.

A woman is overheard talking to her friend about planning for another baby:

"So when we first moved into our house it was 10,000 sq ft and that was fine. It was just the two of us and we were comfortable. But when we had the first baby it started getting a bit tight, so after some convincing, my husband agreed that if we had another baby we could add an expansion. But he only wanted to add another 2000 sq ft, saying we could just be more 'space efficient'. Now it's 4 of us all stuffed into 12,000 sq ft and we're thinking of having a 3rd baby, yet he doesn't want to move or add another expansion. I mean, this is getting ridiculous! We've already become more efficient since wen we first moved in! We had 5000 sq ft per person then, now we have only 3000 sq ft per person. If we stuff another baby into the house we'll have to become another 20% more efficient on top of that!

And what if we decide to have a 4th child? There's no way we can cram 6 people into a 12,000 sq ft house. I mean, its such a simple concept; if your family grows, you need more room. Why is that so hard for him to understand???

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

They're not going to do a $1B+ tunnel for only transit. Even a transit-only lane in an expensive tunnel is a stretch. They did have a bus lane in the 6 lane bridge plan however. With a third crossing it might be possible to get a dedicated one-way lane on the Macdonald. Because of the weight issues I'm not sure LRT could go on it and LRT out to Eastern Passage is not very attractive.

Part of the purpose of the proposed third crossing is to get truck traffic out of the South End. Another useful reason for building the bridge is to improve connections to Eastern Passage/Cole Harbour. I think this is a useful improvement over the prospect of putting more suburban development north of the city. The Spryfield area is also underdeveloped but would be easy to serve with transit if there were some improvements. Actually some people there could practically walk to work if they built a small bridge over the Northwest Arm -- this should be another priority.

I'm definitely open to the idea of a NW arm crossing, but I'm not sure I see the logic in not wanting a harbour crossing to be transit only or have a dedicated transit component because the crossing would be an expensive project. I mean, if its expensive we should want to get as much out of it as possible shouldn't we? And two lanes of transit could easily as move as many or more people as 4-6 lanes of general road space.

As far as rerouting the trucks, sure that would be nice, but for the kinda $$$ we're talking about I think we can safely say there are much higher priorities.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

And what if we decide to have a 4th child? There's no way we can cram 6 people into a 12,000 sq ft house. I mean, its such a simple concept; if your family grows, you need more room. Why is that so hard for him to understand???

This analogy is really strained aside from its disturbing Nanny State connotations. People are not children, and planners are not parents. People should have as much freedom as possible to choose how they want to live. It is the dream of some planners to be able to shove people into fashionable developments (what is fashionable changes every decade or two by the way) but that attitude is ignorant and politically infeasible. Typically in the past it hasn't worked out well. It's how we got things like the Cogswell Interchange back in the 1970s when highways were fashionable.

The reality for Halifax is that the city takes everybody's money and tells them to make do with what they have, people and businesses will leave because they will not want to put up with gridlock and high taxes in a small city.

A transit-only tunnel is again politically infeasible and I think its return on investment is poor. Like I said, where would it even go? Eastern Passage? If you want a more central bridge and your single focus is transit then conversion of the Macdonald makes more sense.

[Nouvellecosse]

There are no nanny state connotations here. No one is suggesting that there should be a law governing how people live or travel. It's simply the same old scenario that with limited funds available, officials should seek the most effective ways to spend them. Which of course is no different from any other planning process.

What I find really strange though is how you seemingly imply that taxpayers such as myself should alter our opinions of what is and isn't a good idea to be more in line with the prevailing views. Suggesting that you or I shouldn't support a position because it's "politically infeasible" aka that most other taxpayers aren't likely to support it, is a bit too "group think" for my taste (just to borrow a little from your style of debate lol). Whether or not other taxpayers are likely to agree with a planning idea has no bearing on whether or not it's a good idea.

It's the job of elected officials to consider the myriad desires of the populace when making decisions, and to often look for compromises in the hopes of coming up with the plan most appealing to the most people. Taxpayers with outlying opinions often don't get exactly what they want, but sometimes are given concessions or allowed to influence the decision-making process.

That will never happen, however, if people with such opinions don't advocate for them and instead chose to support something more mainstream under the belief that doing so is somehow supporting freedom.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Whether or not other taxpayers are likely to agree with a planning idea has no bearing on whether or not it's a good idea.

Perhaps not, but the opinion of taxpayers does in large part determine whether or not these things will ever actually be implemented. Realistic proposals are a lot more interesting and have a greater chance of having a positive impact on the city.

[spaustin]

A third harbour bridge would be a disaster right now. All it would do is guarantee massive amounts of additional sprawl in Eastern Passage. Road capacity will eventually need to be added, but to do so now when we haven't made any serious efforts at increasing transit usage doesn't make any sense. We could spend our money much more wisely. A billion or whatever the cost of another bridge is could build a real bus rapid transit system or a whole network of ferries.

[RyeJay]

I support a third crossing: after HRM has dealt with improvements to its current public transit, which includes investment in some form of rail. There are simply way, way too many vitally necessary tweaks that need to be done to our existing infrastructure before consideration of a third crossing, which would add traffic to an ill-prepared network of roads.

Besides, Halifax's suburbs are doing great; our business parks are a fine example... Let's wait a while before giving birth to budget-raping sprawl to Eastern Passage.

And I doubt a crossing over the arm would ever happen. ....SAVE THE DINGLE VIEW!!!

[Nouvellecosse]

I also doubt it would be easy to get a NW arm crossing but that doesn't stop me from wondering "what if".

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.

[Chadillaccc]

Why couldn't a third crossing include rail transit?


between Surrey and New Westminster, we have the longest transit only bridge on the planet. I'm sure the densely populated boroughs of Halifax and Dartmouth could support a transit bridge with 2 lanes for cars only(no trucks) and pedestrians.

Easier said than done... but it really is a great idea.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by spaustin

A third harbour bridge would be a disaster right now. All it would do is guarantee massive amounts of additional sprawl in Eastern Passage. Road capacity will eventually need to be added, but to do so now when we haven't made any serious efforts at increasing transit usage doesn't make any sense. We could spend our money much more wisely. A billion or whatever the cost of another bridge is could build a real bus rapid transit system or a whole network of ferries.

I also think that there are lots of transit projects that would be much better than a third crossing. I would like to see a modest "backbone" LRT or streetcar system combined with a couple more MetroLink-style BRT routes covering areas like Clayton Park and Spryfield. Another important project proposed is a dedicated transitway running down Bayers or a similar route. These would in total cost maybe $100-200M.

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.

[Josh M]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

And what if we decide to have a 4th child? There's no way we can cram 6 people into a 12,000 sq ft house.

If you cant fit 6 people into a 12 000 sq ft house you need to lose some weight