Bringing the population to 1 million

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Absolutely. There’s no reason at all why Bedford shouldn’t be able to easily develop more of a “downtown” type main drag along the waterfront/Bedford Highway. The fact that it hasn’t kind of seems like a testament to a lack of vision.

My impression is that the Bedford planning rules are quite old and in Bedford terms this means that they were developed during a completely different era when the population was much smaller.

Unfortunately people have also been complaining about the slow waterfront development since I lived around that area 20 years ago.

Bedford has the opposite of a normal pattern of development in that the central parts that should act as a downtown are less developed than many of the outer areas where midrises are being built.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by atbw

Whaat I would like to see is not so much satellite downtowns, but moreso density in the suburbs that allows for residents to do the things they would want to do in a day or week within their neighbourhood, on foot. This, instead of driving into the peninsula or all over their suburb.

I've lived in a city like this - I was very near the edge of the built-up city, but I had two grocery stores, dozens of restaurants and more services than I personally needed within a 15-minute walk. Anywhere else in down was at most a 30-minute bus or subway ride.

While Halifax isn't Korea, I think lots of people, myself included, would be fine living further out if it meant we could more or less keep our 'on foot' lifestyle and have that urban neighbourhood feel.

What you are talking about is walkability. Many larger cities have this. Usually it is because they are old and lack cul de sacs. The old towns and cities of what make up Halifax are prime areas to ensure walkabliity. We need to rid the plans of cul de sac designs. Having a grid system also means transit isn't snaking to get close to most people.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Your comment "What I do love is to think about whether the solutions presented would be the best options for solving the problem" is intriguing. Well, let me tell you my story of visiting DT Halifax on Friday morning.

I avoid DT at all costs these days. It is helpful that I usually no longer have any need to go there most of the time. But on Friday I had some business that meant I had to go DT for the first time in months.

It was the morning after our first significant snowfall of the season, mid-morning on the last full week of business before Christmas, so I expected potential pandemonium. What I saw was very interesting. Traffic was virtually nil in most places mid-morning. Downtown seemed, if not quite dead, at least on life support. The only congestion I saw was on Hollis St where the interchange transitions into the old street. That part seemed unchanged as it has always been so there. Container trucks in stop and crawl mode, grappling with the narrow street. Vehicles trying to squeeze past other vehicles. The usual situation that has been the norm for decades. But this time was different.

It has been changed recently, and the overnight snow highlighted it starkly. Now, the 3-lane Hollis St is supposedly 2 travel lanes, one rightmost bike lane, and zero in the way of parking or turning lanes. In yesterday's case the two vehicle lanes to the left and in the center were damp but clear blacktop. The rightmost lane was the bike lane and was filled with untouched snow. Of course there was nary a bicycle in sight.

No doubt the planners will be thinking, "we need to fix that so the bike lane gets cleared". What they really need to think about though is the reality of what they created. Because despite their best efforts, Hollis St is still very much a business street, with office buildings and commercial tenants trying to go about their day. And this is where the arse comes out of the planning theory.

With the "protected" but otherwise unusable and useless bike lane completely out of the equation, those trying to go about their business are forced to resort to the left-most lane. Trying to drop off or pick up a passenger? You have to stop in that lane. Making a delivery or picking up up a parcel? Same. A courier delivering important papers? You know the drill. This time it had the extra added attraction of those people who stopped in the left lane to do their business having to run across the street, hopefully avoiding the container trucks, hurdle the bike lane protective curbing buried under the snow, and then wade though 8 inches of uncleared frozen precip if they needed to enter a building on the west side of the street. All the way down Hollis was a constant series of interruptions to the movement of vehicles because of normal obstacle-creating activities one expects to find in a city's downtown, but now with no way for traffic to get around them easily and quickly. Meanwhile the abandoned and neglected bike lane sits there in its white coat of snow sticking out like a very sore thumb. Only 2/3rds of an already too-narrow ROW is being used.

Now you are no doubt thinking "Oh, there's Keith ranting about bike lanes again" but this really isn't that. The bike lane argument is settled based on what I saw yesterday. It is sheer and utter folly. Nobody can deny that. Perhaps on a nice day in September when it is not too hot and not too cold and not too wet and not too snowy there might be a few bikes using it. But the operative word here is "few". Compared to the other demands being placed on a street like Hollis it is well, well down the list of priorities. It is the only way southbound truck traffic can reach the container pier. It is the street upon which the seat of govt and many office buildings are found. It is the main southbound corridor for the entire downtown. And our city leaders have kneecapped it for what can only be seen as a philosophical statement instead of what is a good and practical solution that serves the broader needs of the city.

Incidentally when I had to leave I needed to use Water St for that and that experience was almost as bad. There were a series of new-to-me green and white striped posts along the right side which I assume are also a bike lane of a different type, although again it was mostly snow-covered and bereft of activity. The street itself is now mostly a single lane northbound. You can imagine how it would be on a typical day. Because of the pandemic I presume, traffic was at least manageable and I was able to get out without dealing with the typical gridlock. But the same argument would apply if it was a normal day.

So if Council and HRM bureaucrats are truly interested in answering the question of "whether the solutions presented would be the best options for solving the problem", the first answer should be "I have seen the enemy, and it is us".

I would ask you why bike lanes work? Not why they don't.
They work because they have a growing group of people using them. Right now, Halifax doesn't have many, but as time goes on, that number will increase. I'd bet 5 years from now, there would be tire tracks in the snow, or there will be riders and the snow will be cleared. Realistically, cycling is doable in Halifax for about 8 months of the year without worry. It is those 4ish months where snow makes it more of a challenge. I'd say having those bike lane empty 1/3 of the year is worth having them there.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Absolutely. There’s no reason at all why Bedford shouldn’t be able to easily develop more of a “downtown” type main drag along the waterfront/Bedford Highway. The fact that it hasn’t kind of seems like a testament to a lack of vision.

The Dutch Village Road area also has potential to develop in this direction—I don’t know if there’s any intentional planning at the municipal level to accomplish this, but the organic growth is going that way (albeit in a mish-mashy way that could use more direction). It’s a little unfortunate that the street isn’t a bit farther out and more central within Fairview/Clayton Park.

Less obviously, the gridded, easily intensified nature of the eastern Dartmouth/Cole Harbour suburbs means there’s lots of potential there, especially adjacent to Main Street between NSCC Akerley and the 111, and maybe out on Cole Harbour Road. But that would also require a shift to more mass transit, etc., since any changes that reduce traffic flow would be challenging, given how the streets functions as traffic sewers. Would require some pretty significant zoning changes, as well, to transform them from a stroad into real city streets. Still, it’s doable with the existing street layouts, which is the biggest hurdle.

Absolutely. This post was never about just the peninsula. It is about the area that is now the City of Halifax. So, if you pay your taxes to the City of Halifax, regardless of what your postal address says, this is about your area. If there isn't intentional planning, there should be. Keep the historical properties. Have new, taller buildings fit organically in.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I agree, and just felt like pointing out that nuances are important as well. Being bigger has its advantages, but also its sacrifices. I don't find that people focus much on what can be lost in our efforts to become 'bigger and better'.

I've enjoyed the discussion in this thread - the exchange of ideas has been fun to read.

When the city hits 500,000, what will be lost? What about 750,000? What about 1 million?
I feel the key is to do things smartly so that you don't loose the feel of what is good.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Agree with your points, but I will say that Bedford currently is always busy traffic-wise - I suspect mostly because of people commuting between Halifax and Sackville/Dartmouth/points north and west. If you look at traffic on Google maps throughout any weekday, you will see that Bedford is always slow, which will probably be worse once the new bus-only lanes are added.

So, in the spirit of this thread, if Bedford is developed to be a 'downtown-ish' area, there will need to be some infrastructure planning in advance.

Maybe more connections to the 102? The Bedford Highway cannot easily be expanded. The following is an exit list and distance between, with the second distance on the Bedford Highway:
101 - Hammond Plains Rd 4km 6km
Hammond Plains Rd - Larry Uteck Blvd 3km 2km
Larry Uteck Blvd - Kearney Lake Rd 2km 2km

Seems to me that there is an issue between Highway 101 and Hammond Plains Rd. I'll bet that putting in 1 more access there would help.

[Dengler Avenue]

@swimmer_spe that gap’s reserved for an eventual Highway 113.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Absolutely. There’s no reason at all why Bedford shouldn’t be able to easily develop more of a “downtown” type main drag along the waterfront/Bedford Highway. The fact that it hasn’t kind of seems like a testament to a lack of vision.

I wonder how much of this comes down to Bedford being in the HRM instead of being its own municipality. Vancouver has this with Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey etc. because they're all separate municipalities with their own individual goals (as well as things like, uh, regional LRT). Surely Bedford's waterfront and DT would be more developed if it were separate but obviously that would be counterweighed by not being within HRM. Someone can update me on if Bedford has separate developmental rules in place for that area, though.

I agree that more urbanized suburban centres is the next logical step in development - creating urban nodes throughout the HRM. Bedford and Dartmouth are the two most likely areas for this I would imagine. It would be of great benefit to have multiple walkable neighbourhoods for residents to select from and provide diversity in offerings within the HRM, as well as having sufficient public transit options between them, whether that's improved bussing, LRT, or ferries.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Actually, no need to apologize. If anything I should apologize to you for going off on one of my usual tangents. I agree, and have stated that, Halifax planning should be much better than it has been. If you look back at some of the old Halifax photo threads in this forum, you will see that there was a point where Halifax had no problem taking on some very large infrastructure projects (like the rail cut, for example) that have paid off time and time again over the decades. Halifax planning lost its mojo somewhere along the line and it needs to get it back.

Sadly, this is not unique to Halifax. One of the biggest problems is the NIMBY attitude. Your tangent is not unusual to how most people feel. In fact, having someone like you in this thread allows us to understand the other side of the arguments that we so many times want to ignore.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I have to admit that I don't know Vancouver very well. When I was there I found the traffic situation to be not very good, such as the congestion for the Lion's Gate Bridge, and the ferry situation to get to Vancouver Island. So it may not be such a great example, but I didn't find myself wishing that I lived there.

It is a population of over 1 million. The fact that you would want to live there says some things they do are good. I have thought that having a "vacation" condo in Toronto would be good as well. They have some good things that would be enjoyable, but I like being in the middle of nowhere.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't love any traffic congestion, but compared to other cities I've visited, Halifax isn't really bad. There's always room for improvement, and as I've stated we should be planning decades in advance to accommodate future population growth.

The reason that it doesn't seem as bad is because of it's smaller size. Add another 100,000, and that annoyance becomes even worse. So, what would be the first thing that you would think would ease the congestion?

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

My first response was to the idea that 1 million people living in Halifax was some sort of optimal goal that we should strive for, but I realize that wasn't the intent of your original post.

I picked the number because it is double the existing population. That number, with existing infrastructure and sprawl would cripple the city. It focuses our view to how bad it could be.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

@swimmer_spe that gap’s reserved for an eventual Highway 113.

Well, build the section to Bedford Highway now, then build the 113.

Originally Posted by JHikka

I wonder how much of this comes down to Bedford being in the HRM instead of being its own municipality. Vancouver has this with Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey etc. because they're all separate municipalities with their own individual goals (as well as things like, uh, regional LRT). Surely Bedford's waterfront and DT would be more developed if it were separate but obviously that would be counterweighed by not being within HRM. Someone can update me on if Bedford has separate developmental rules in place for that area, though.

I agree that more urbanized suburban centres is the next logical step in development - creating urban nodes throughout the HRM. Bedford and Dartmouth are the two most likely areas for this I would imagine. It would be of great benefit to have multiple walkable neighbourhoods for residents to select from and provide diversity in offerings within the HRM, as well as having sufficient public transit options between them, whether that's improved bussing, LRT, or ferries.

The Metropolitan Toronto had that issue. Toronto would do something that would be different than York, and then North York would do their own thing, all the while each affects the rest. A recent example of the GVA having an issue is the Surrey LRT proposal. If the GVA became what Halifax is, then it could be better done.

What the city of Halifax needs to do is the come up with better plans outside the peninsula.

[GreaterMontréal]

I know that Burnside is a bit of a sacred cow and rightly so being that it is the largest employment centre east of Montreal and Boston

I would say, east of Quebec City and Boston. There are more than 1.2M people within 120km of Quebec City.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I have to admit that I don't know Vancouver very well. When I was there I found the traffic situation to be not very good, such as the congestion for the Lion's Gate Bridge, and the ferry situation to get to Vancouver Island. So it may not be such a great example, but I didn't find myself wishing that I lived there.

Traffic around North Van is so bad that I've had to at times simply abandon plans to go there. Highway 1 to Abbotsford and Chilliwack is awful too, with tons of congestion and accidents because the highway traffic stops randomly (only 2 lanes each direction in parts, and the Lower Mainland has 3 million people or so!). I am not commuting to work anymore but when I was it was something like 11 km and often took 45 mins by car, with the worst time being 95 mins. Transit was not practical. When I could take transit, even on the main rapid transit lines, the travel times were comparable.

One thing that doesn't come up much is that people around Halifax will talk about road trips to say Wolfville or Truro that take around an hour or a bit more. You can easily spend that time just driving through GTA or GVRD suburbs. There is certainly more that you can visit in the big cities, but the gap is a bit smaller than it seems due to the higher speeds in smaller metros with good highways.

The houses around here are all $1M+ so it is challenging for most to buy a house or even the condo they want.

I consider myself fortunate and I have no real complaints about my lifestyle but I think Vancouver is much worse than it *could* be with good planning. I understand land is limited here but that doesn't mean multi-unit development has to be so limited and so expensive. And we just don't have enough infrastructure here for the population, so travel is more annoying than it could be. The beautiful parts of metro Vancouver in many cases feel like they're designed as playgrounds for the lucky people who inherited property near them (e.g. they will have bad transit and limited parking), the kinds of people you see say in provincial government talking about how there's nothing wrong with housing here.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

I would say, east of Quebec City and Boston. There are more than 1.2M people within 120km of Quebec City.

The argument is that Burnside is the largest single "district" with the most employment. This is plausible; Burnside is a big industrial park covering around 12 km^2.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Sadly, this is not unique to Halifax. One of the biggest problems is the NIMBY attitude. Your tangent is not unusual to how most people feel. In fact, having someone like you in this thread allows us to understand the other side of the arguments that we so many times want to ignore.

This is very true. The appetite for big, forward-thinking planning is in short supply nationwide.

Take Toronto's Prince Edward Viaduct, spanning the Don River. It was built in 1918, and the city spent a huge amount of money to ensure that its lower deck could accommodate rail transport--which wasn't built until the subway opened in 1966, 48 years later. That's long-term thinking. That story is often used in Toronto to suggest how little long-term vision is present today. Anyone familiar with the comedy of errors that has characterized Toronto transit planning in the past 15 years can plainly see what a shit-show it's become: endlessly delayed projects, urban vs. suburban bickering, new plans drawn up and then scrapped every time a new civic administration comes in, etc.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Take Toronto's Prince Edward Viaduct, spanning the Don River. It was built in 1918, and the city spent a huge amount of money to ensure that its lower deck could accommodate rail transport--which wasn't built until the subway opened in 1966, 48 years later. That's long-term thinking. That story is often used in Toronto to suggest how little long-term vision is present today. Anyone familiar with the comedy of errors that has characterized Toronto transit planning in the past 15 years can plainly see what a shit-show it's become: endlessly delayed projects, urban vs. suburban bickering, new plans drawn up and then scrapped every time a new civic administration comes in, etc.

Things really did a 180 after the urban renewal phase of the 1960's. In a lot of cities, a bit of land encroachment or the need to demolish a handful of houses is considered a showstopper for regional infrastructure projects worth in the hundreds of millions. It's crazy. There's also a generation of obstructionists who pretty much just pat themselves on the back for stopping things from being built, the groups that were really at their peak from the 1980's to early 2000's. In some cases they did good work but you can't run a city on obstructionism alone. Think of how much airtime the Friends of the Commons type people in the CBC or Herald relative to questions of infrastructure improvement in the core.

The Northwest Arm bridge is an example of this attitude. We can debate whether or not it's a good project but we should not pretend that building a bridge from the foot of South Street, where there's already a ROW extending right to the water, is an insurmountable obstacle.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, when I was a kid, I had lots on my list, and got some of it. What would be on your Halifax wish list? What could improve the city now, and be great as it grows?

To answer the question, I sometimes think it would be nice to have an LRT running from central Larry Uteck, across through Clayton park all the way to the west end. The land around the stops tends to densify making the community more walkable. The problem is that I think it would be disruptive to a lot of people in Clayton park, and securing a suitable route could make Ottawa’s LRT problems look simple. The Waterloo LRT had a much easier time with relatively flat terrain and open space, but it was still hugely controversial.

I believe we need to start with local solutions before moving to large-scale regional projects. Start with “what can improve this street corner”, then move towards the regional view (observe all at once of course). I’m a bit reluctant to say everything that will be needed to move 1 million people when I don’t know which areas they will be living in. I’m saying that if we want to plan connections, we need to plan on where people will live at the same time. I can still get behind a few big things like a NW arm crossing, LRT or fast ferries.

My biggest objection is how the proposals critique Toronto’s urban form, but their guiding principles of “abundant land + more freeways” essentially emulate the past development of Toronto. I’ve had to drive to Toronto from Waterloo on a couple weekday mornings for some appointments, and it’s absolute hell starting from Milton. I’ve spent three weeks living in a city of 15 million with better traffic than Toronto. They had some wide arterial roads (non highway) but also superb public transit (subways every 2 mins) and extreme mixed-use density. That’s why I think all these projects proposed in the original post would support more than 1 million, perhaps 2-3 million, if everything was built at even a moderate density like you recommend.

On the topic of the NIMBY attitude, I see it as a necessary evil for the city to function. NIMBYs are hardly a Haligonian phenomenon, let alone one restricted to democracies. I can say for certain NIMBYs exist in abundance in “non-democratic” countries where large scale projects are seen as normal. I may disagree with 95% of what the Halifax NIMBY groups say, but I don’t want to make myself ignorant to the 5% of points I agree with. Let’s say we have a proposal, any proposal; how do we extract that beneficial 5% to make the project better, and make it a sustainable choice future generations won’t regret?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I would ask you why bike lanes work? Not why they don't.
They work because they have a growing group of people using them. Right now, Halifax doesn't have many, but as time goes on, that number will increase. I'd bet 5 years from now, there would be tire tracks in the snow, or there will be riders and the snow will be cleared. Realistically, cycling is doable in Halifax for about 8 months of the year without worry. It is those 4ish months where snow makes it more of a challenge. I'd say having those bike lane empty 1/3 of the year is worth having them there.

That answer seems based on dogma and not any actual factual basis. Meanwhile the impact on DT is significant and will only get worse once the pandemic slowdown lessens.

It seems to me the solution would be fairly simple. Extend the trail that is between CFB Stadacona and the DT along the waterfront nearby to or actually using the existing boardwalk route. That would get bike traffic off the street network, be much safer, and allow Hollis and Water Sts to return to some sense of normalcy. It would also support the recreational cycling segment which is still the largest portion of that mode. I cannot see many ppl using bicycles actually enjoying the use of the Hollis/Water lanes at present.

[q12]

Originally Posted by someone123

The argument is that Burnside is the largest single "district" with the most employment. This is plausible; Burnside is a big industrial park covering around 12 km^2.

Burnside is getting even larger with an expansion on the other side of the new 107 Burnside Expressway.



It is definitely larger than any industrial park in Quebec City.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

This is very true. The appetite for big, forward-thinking planning is in short supply nationwide.

Take Toronto's Prince Edward Viaduct, spanning the Don River. It was built in 1918, and the city spent a huge amount of money to ensure that its lower deck could accommodate rail transport--which wasn't built until the subway opened in 1966, 48 years later. That's long-term thinking. That story is often used in Toronto to suggest how little long-term vision is present today. Anyone familiar with the comedy of errors that has characterized Toronto transit planning in the past 15 years can plainly see what a shit-show it's become: endlessly delayed projects, urban vs. suburban bickering, new plans drawn up and then scrapped every time a new civic administration comes in, etc.

Just imagine today building a 3rd harbour crossing and installing space for 2 way rail line in, and it not be used for 40+ years. The outrage would be insane. Nothing is built to be future proof. The end of Dunbrack in Spryfield cannot be extended because the city didn't think to future proof the end.

Originally Posted by someone123

Things really did a 180 after the urban renewal phase of the 1960's. In a lot of cities, a bit of land encroachment or the need to demolish a handful of houses is considered a showstopper for regional infrastructure projects worth in the hundreds of millions. It's crazy. There's also a generation of obstructionists who pretty much just pat themselves on the back for stopping things from being built, the groups that were really at their peak from the 1980's to early 2000's. In some cases they did good work but you can't run a city on obstructionism alone. Think of how much airtime the Friends of the Commons type people in the CBC or Herald relative to questions of infrastructure improvement in the core.

The Northwest Arm bridge is an example of this attitude. We can debate whether or not it's a good project but we should not pretend that building a bridge from the foot of South Street, where there's already a ROW extending right to the water, is an insurmountable obstacle.

It is insurmountable because the local residents own million dollar properties.
The problem in the 60s was that it was only about the car. tear down everything to get more space for the car. That soured everything since then. So, if a bridge over the NW arm is built, it needs to have transit and travel lanes, and bike paths, and everything else.

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

To answer the question, I sometimes think it would be nice to have an LRT running from central Larry Uteck, across through Clayton park all the way to the west end. The land around the stops tends to densify making the community more walkable. The problem is that I think it would be disruptive to a lot of people in Clayton park, and securing a suitable route could make Ottawa’s LRT problems look simple. The Waterloo LRT had a much easier time with relatively flat terrain and open space, but it was still hugely controversial.

I believe we need to start with local solutions before moving to large-scale regional projects. Start with “what can improve this street corner”, then move towards the regional view (observe all at once of course). I’m a bit reluctant to say everything that will be needed to move 1 million people when I don’t know which areas they will be living in. I’m saying that if we want to plan connections, we need to plan on where people will live at the same time. I can still get behind a few big things like a NW arm crossing, LRT or fast ferries.

My biggest objection is how the proposals critique Toronto’s urban form, but their guiding principles of “abundant land + more freeways” essentially emulate the past development of Toronto. I’ve had to drive to Toronto from Waterloo on a couple weekday mornings for some appointments, and it’s absolute hell starting from Milton. I’ve spent three weeks living in a city of 15 million with better traffic than Toronto. They had some wide arterial roads (non highway) but also superb public transit (subways every 2 mins) and extreme mixed-use density. That’s why I think all these projects proposed in the original post would support more than 1 million, perhaps 2-3 million, if everything was built at even a moderate density like you recommend.

On the topic of the NIMBY attitude, I see it as a necessary evil for the city to function. NIMBYs are hardly a Haligonian phenomenon, let alone one restricted to democracies. I can say for certain NIMBYs exist in abundance in “non-democratic” countries where large scale projects are seen as normal. I may disagree with 95% of what the Halifax NIMBY groups say, but I don’t want to make myself ignorant to the 5% of points I agree with. Let’s say we have a proposal, any proposal; how do we extract that beneficial 5% to make the project better, and make it a sustainable choice future generations won’t regret?

The issue that really seems to get out of hand is that to fix a corner to make it better, someone on the other side of the city will try to stop it. The 5% that most of us agree on is good, but the 95% is what shuts down everything. That is a problem and should stop. Yes, let's listen to their concerns and mitigate the things they bring up that are reasonable concerns. The rest, we ignore and build the project.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That answer seems based on dogma and not any actual factual basis. Meanwhile the impact on DT is significant and will only get worse once the pandemic slowdown lessens.

It seems to me the solution would be fairly simple. Extend the trail that is between CFB Stadacona and the DT along the waterfront nearby to or actually using the existing boardwalk route. That would get bike traffic off the street network, be much safer, and allow Hollis and Water Sts to return to some sense of normalcy. It would also support the recreational cycling segment which is still the largest portion of that mode. I cannot see many ppl using bicycles actually enjoying the use of the Hollis/Water lanes at present.

You are confusing a cycle lane and a cycle path. Lanes are like roads, paths are like highways. You need those lanes to funnel into the paths. In the 6os, the thought of building the Coxworth Interchange and not building a cycle lane would be normal and is how we have created this mess. So, now they are putting in cycle lanes to fix the issues. Give it a few decades and those lanes will be just as busy as the road lanes.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is insurmountable because the local residents own million dollar properties.

I think this attitude is often a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. People make assumptions about what is or isn't practical and then they take on a life of their own and become embedded into the local culture, diminishing the range of possibilities. Often what would be considered totally normal and would be implemented in one place without any practical problems is considered obviously impractical somewhere else when there's no functional explanation for the difference.

This narrowing of possibilities is one of the things that's kind of frustrating about Halifax and hopefully something it can break out of more and more in the future. Think up new ideas, then do the detailed analysis, then accept a little risk.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Traffic around North Van is so bad that I've had to at times simply abandon plans to go there. Highway 1 to Abbotsford and Chilliwack is awful too, with tons of congestion and accidents because the highway traffic stops randomly (only 2 lanes each direction in parts, and the Lower Mainland has 3 million people or so!). I am not commuting to work anymore but when I was it was something like 11 km and often took 45 mins by car, with the worst time being 95 mins. Transit was not practical. When I could take transit, even on the main rapid transit lines, the travel times were comparable.

One thing that doesn't come up much is that people around Halifax will talk about road trips to say Wolfville or Truro that take around an hour or a bit more. You can easily spend that time just driving through GTA or GVRD suburbs. There is certainly more that you can visit in the big cities, but the gap is a bit smaller than it seems due to the higher speeds in smaller metros with good highways.

The houses around here are all $1M+ so it is challenging for most to buy a house or even the condo they want.

I consider myself fortunate and I have no real complaints about my lifestyle but I think Vancouver is much worse than it *could* be with good planning. I understand land is limited here but that doesn't mean multi-unit development has to be so limited and so expensive. And we just don't have enough infrastructure here for the population, so travel is more annoying than it could be. The beautiful parts of metro Vancouver in many cases feel like they're designed as playgrounds for the lucky people who inherited property near them (e.g. they will have bad transit and limited parking), the kinds of people you see say in provincial government talking about how there's nothing wrong with housing here.

Thanks for the insight. Very interesting!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The problem in the 60s was that it was only about the car. tear down everything to get more space for the car. That soured everything since then. So, if a bridge over the NW arm is built, it needs to have transit and travel lanes, and bike paths, and everything else.

This is a narrative that I read often in this forum, but I'd like to ad some context if I could.

I often read posts from the viewpoint of people who, for many reasons, appear to be mostly anti-car. While I do understand the reasoning in many cases, the narrative often sounds like there was some big conspiracy to destroy cities by making them car-centric.

As I have seen and studied during my lifetime, historical context tends to be skewed somewhat by the preferences of the individual (myself included), so with that in mind here is my take on how infrastructure has evolved.

I'll start by making the statement that infrastructure has always been developed based on peoples' needs, or perceived needs. Roads were always built to fit the needs of the day, whether it be Roman chariots, footpaths which followed the easiest or most direct path to a destination, dirt road for horses and wagons, rails for trains, or paved roads for motor vehicles.

The type of road evolved as technology evolved - i.e. the roadways were optimized for the best technology available to the masses at any given time in history. Roads were built out of political will, which came from the wants and needs of the population, or when there was a business case from the private sector in some cases. For example, in the mid-late 1800s, most local travel was done by horses or horses/oxen pulling buggies/wagons, etc.; whereas longer travel was handled by rail - the best technology available at the time. As we moved into the 20th century, cars became available to the average person, and they were a fast and efficient way to travel and commute if they had safe, appropriate roadways on which to travel.

Therefore, over many decades roads were built to suit car/truck travel, and it was so convenient and efficient that trucks gradually started to replace trains for moving large quantities of goods, as the business case became more advantageous. In some cases roads were even built for perceived military needs. So IMHO, up until recently, the driver for new infrastructure was to provide the best use of land to suit the best technology.

What I am seeing today, is a reversal of sorts, not driven by the latest technology of vehicle, but driven by other factors that society has deemed important - such as the environment, personal health, personal economy, lifestyle choices, etc.

In some ways it's a reversal of sorts, moving to older forms of transportation such as a bicycle or mass transit, which were once often chosen simply for economic reasons (and still are in some cases), but even more so being chosen to lessen one's effect on the environment, or to simplify life by choosing to not own a car, etc. etc.

The difference in narratives is, IMHO, while often people frame "car oriented" infrastructure as some shady plot to take over a city and society, it was really about people trying to improve their lives over the lives lived by their parents or grandparents, etc (which actually is a recurring theme in our society). People bought cars and demanded infrastructure from their government because they were much more convenient, faster, more comfortable, etc. than the horses and buggies that their parents and grandparents used. This was something wanted by people, not forced upon them. Car repair businesses arose from a need to maintain and repair cars - business opened by people who wanted to make a living from such activities, not forced upon a neighbourhood to degrade the locals.

When you look at today in a broader sense, as a slice of history, you may conclude that we are at a point of change - where we hit a pinnacle of self-indulgent behaviour and are now being forced to dial back by environmental and societal forces that are changing things for the better. And we may be... but only the passing of time will reveal where we go from here. While people today think that we are making the right decisions and we are moving in the right direction, future generations may look at our time period and scoff at how foolish we were. "How silly for them to be building bicycle lanes when we really needed space for the carbon-neutral automated hovercrafts we have now"... or something like that.

Sorry... another tangent. Kind of off-topic, but not completely... hopefully context to improve the conversation, which has been quite interesting so far.

[Phalanx]

I don't think it's 'best technology' per se, I think it has more to do with industry and economy. North America was shaped largely by the prevalence and power of the automotive and energy (oil) industries from the 30s-70s.

Manufacturing jobs were plentiful, fuel and cars were cheap, and both industries had a lot of sway. The distances and relatively low population density between cities made the infrastructure required for rail prohibitively expensive at the time.

If you look elsewhere (Europe and Asia) things developed differently.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This is a narrative that I read often in this forum, but I'd like to ad some context if I could.

I often read posts from the viewpoint of people who, for many reasons, appear to be mostly anti-car. While I do understand the reasoning in many cases, the narrative often sounds like there was some big conspiracy to destroy cities by making them car-centric.

As I have seen and studied during my lifetime, historical context tends to be skewed somewhat by the preferences of the individual (myself included), so with that in mind here is my take on how infrastructure has evolved.

I'll start by making the statement that infrastructure has always been developed based on peoples' needs, or perceived needs. Roads were always built to fit the needs of the day, whether it be Roman chariots, footpaths which followed the easiest or most direct path to a destination, dirt road for horses and wagons, rails for trains, or paved roads for motor vehicles.

The type of road evolved as technology evolved - i.e. the roadways were optimized for the best technology available to the masses at any given time in history. Roads were built out of political will, which came from the wants and needs of the population, or when there was a business case from the private sector in some cases. For example, in the mid-late 1800s, most local travel was done by horses or horses/oxen pulling buggies/wagons, etc.; whereas longer travel was handled by rail - the best technology available at the time. As we moved into the 20th century, cars became available to the average person, and they were a fast and efficient way to travel and commute if they had safe, appropriate roadways on which to travel.

Therefore, over many decades roads were built to suit car/truck travel, and it was so convenient and efficient that trucks gradually started to replace trains for moving large quantities of goods, as the business case became more advantageous. In some cases roads were even built for perceived military needs. So IMHO, up until recently, the driver for new infrastructure was to provide the best use of land to suit the best technology.

What I am seeing today, is a reversal of sorts, not driven by the latest technology of vehicle, but driven by other factors that society has deemed important - such as the environment, personal health, personal economy, lifestyle choices, etc.

In some ways it's a reversal of sorts, moving to older forms of transportation such as a bicycle or mass transit, which were once often chosen simply for economic reasons (and still are in some cases), but even more so being chosen to lessen one's effect on the environment, or to simplify life by choosing to not own a car, etc. etc.

The difference in narratives is, IMHO, while often people frame "car oriented" infrastructure as some shady plot to take over a city and society, it was really about people trying to improve their lives over the lives lived by their parents or grandparents, etc (which actually is a recurring theme in our society). People bought cars and demanded infrastructure from their government because they were much more convenient, faster, more comfortable, etc. than the horses and buggies that their parents and grandparents used. This was something wanted by people, not forced upon them. Car repair businesses arose from a need to maintain and repair cars - business opened by people who wanted to make a living from such activities, not forced upon a neighbourhood to degrade the locals.

When you look at today in a broader sense, as a slice of history, you may conclude that we are at a point of change - where we hit a pinnacle of self-indulgent behaviour and are now being forced to dial back by environmental and societal forces that are changing things for the better. And we may be... but only the passing of time will reveal where we go from here. While people today think that we are making the right decisions and we are moving in the right direction, future generations may look at our time period and scoff at how foolish we were. "How silly for them to be building bicycle lanes when we really needed space for the carbon-neutral automated hovercrafts we have now"... or something like that.

Sorry... another tangent. Kind of off-topic, but not completely... hopefully context to improve the conversation, which has been quite interesting so far.

I think it’s very on-topic to say a city’s transportation network is a product of that era’s societal norms.

The changes were generally thought to be modernizing and improving society. There were perhaps some critical intellectuals at the time, but there’s little to no way average people of the day could have foreseen today’s concerns. There was a time when only the men drove to work, there was a time when people didn’t worry about health and fitness because they were eating healthier foods and getting exercise from day-to-day activities, there was a time when the environment wasn’t seen as an issue... among a 1000 other examples.

I think my biggest critique of that era is that the poorer neighbourhoods were often chosen as the route to doze through, so it’s easy why some could see it as a conspiracy. At the end of the day, if you had the choice between a poor or a middle-income neighbourhood, one of them was clearly more justifiable to raze at the time.