[Moncton] East (Harrisville, Lewisville, Tankville, Irishtown) Developments

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by L'homard

A roundabout would have worked better here but there is no room for one here so these new traffic lights will have to do.

It's an industrial area with lots of 18-wheeler traffic. Tractor-trailers don't handle roundabouts very well.

The Harrisville/TCH interchange has the potential to become very congested, what with all the development occurring in the area. I'm happy to see they are installing traffic signals.

[L'homard]

Yes they are much needed.
When I drove by for a first=hand look, I was paying attention to my driving and wasn't able to see if they are putting in turning lanes for this new signalized intersection.
I very much hope that is the case and not what they usually do, which is to wait until after a few years of a traffic choke point and then opt to build turning lanes.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by L'homard

Yes they are much needed.
When I drove by for a first=hand look, I was paying attention to my driving and wasn't able to see if they are putting in turning lanes for this new signalized intersection.
I very much hope that is the case and not what they usually do, which is to wait until after a few years of a traffic choke point and then opt to build turning lanes.

I know for a fact that they are widening the TCH eastbound offramp at Harrisville, and I presume this is for a dedicated left turning lane towards the Caledonia Industrial Park. This should make a big difference.

[MonctonRad]

A major new residential development is planned for Marriott Drive, to the west of the Fairfield Inn & Suites.


T&T photo

Marriott Drive will be extended to Warner, and Camelot Drive will be extended southward to create a new intersection with Marriott/Warner. The lease for Impact Moncton expires in November, and this land will be included as part of the development. I would imagine the apartment buildings within the proposed development will be located on this portion of the land. The overall development is over 50 acres.

The plan is for:
- 59 single storey townhomes with garages
- 24 two storey townhomes with garages
- 37 split level townhomes
- 8 apartment buildings with 24-50 units each.

Townhome construction should begin before the start of winter, and apartment construction will begin sometime in 2023.

I would expect more details may be forthcoming from minutes from upcoming city council or PAC meetings.

If residential growth picks up in the Harrisville/Dieppe Blvd area, I wonder if Sobeys will revisit the idea of a new neighbourhood grocery store near the Kent on Harrisville.

[MonctonianSentinel01]

I wonder if they will take the opportunity to connect Drayton Street with Lady Guinevere Street?

[b2dam]

I imagine all the rich people on Lady G will be psyched to have the development in their backyards. Unfortunately for them, I don't think any of them have Irving level money to put a stop to it.

[jonny golden]

Originally Posted by MonctonianSentinel01

I wonder if they will take the opportunity to connect Drayton Street with Lady Guinevere Street?

Makes sense to do it.

[josh_cat_eyes]

MonctonRad is there a site plan? Or a general article describing the street layout? Also does this require rezoning? If so the rich people could express their displeasure.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by josh_cat_eyes

MonctonRad is there a site plan? Or a general article describing the street layout? Also does this require rezoning? If so the rich people could express their displeasure.

The information I posted is from a T&T article that I have read. I have no additional information, but if you look at the September agenda of Moncton PAC (posted online), you can see renders of the first townhomes to be built. I have seen no actual site plan.

https://www5.moncton.ca/docs/pac/PAC..._87_Warner.pdf
https://www5.moncton.ca/docs/pac/PAC..._86_Warner.pdf

As long as proper zoning rules are followed, I see no valid reason for the "rich people" to object to this project. They might be unhappy, but what legal justification would they have?

EDIT - the current zoning for this land is R3 - multiple unit dwellings. It doesn't matter what the denizens of Lady Guinevere think - this is the type of development intended for this land.

[MonctonRad]

The land behind the residents of Lady Guinevere properties is zoned R3 (according to PAC documents), and there is nothing inappropriate about this new planned development. Any objection they may have will likely fall on deaf ears. It would be interesting to see however if there is an intended treed buffer between the back of these properties and the proposed development. Just looking at the satellite image leads me to believe there likely will be a healthy treed buffer.

[Riberview]

The homes on Lady Guinevere, east of Sir Lancelot, which back onto this proposed development; are all assessed in the mid $500k's.

The proposed developments will be of high quality. Surely each townhome will be in the $300k range.

Crappy when you're used to having trees in your backyard.. but the land was for sale so...

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by MonctonianSentinel01

I wonder if they will take the opportunity to connect Drayton Street with Lady Guinevere Street?

Not necessarily.

I know of a couple of instances in the NW end (Muirfield/Casino, Glencairn/Mailhot) where indignant local residents have blocked short connecting segments of roadway which would have immeasurably improved internal traffic flow in the neighbourhood for purely selfish reasons, pushing traffic onto other nearby streets. I imagine the dynamic in Camelot Estates would be similar.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Not necessarily.

I know of a couple of instances in the NW end (Muirfield/Casino, Glencairn/Mailhot) where indignant local residents have blocked short connecting segments of roadway which would have immeasurably improved internal traffic flow in the neighbourhood for purely selfish reasons, pushing traffic onto other nearby streets. I imagine the dynamic in Camelot Estates would be similar.

I don't blame Muirfield residents not wanting Casino/highway access, but Glencairn/Mailhot is strange. I looked it up and learned the connector isn't even DoT or city property- it's part of the trailer park, as is all the undeveloped land southwest to Shannon.

[Mattyyy]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The land behind the residents of Lady Guinevere properties is zoned R3 (according to PAC documents), and there is nothing inappropriate about this new planned development. Any objection they may have will likely fall on deaf ears. It would be interesting to see however if there is an intended treed buffer between the back of these properties and the proposed development. Just looking at the satellite image leads me to believe there likely will be a healthy treed buffer.

There is nothing inappropriate about this development and residents are well aware that this is zoned R3 and that this day would be coming - especially after the Irving's moved. The only major concern regarding this development is traffic flow via Camelot. The preference would be to not open this into Camelot at all, but rather have traffic flow out to Harrisville. Some may see this as "selfish" however if you have a home in the area you can hardly blame residents for being concerned. With the amount of units to be constructed, it will likely add 3x the vehicle traffic versus what is there today, and this will greatly change the overall feel of the neighbourhood. This is a major issue, especially if you have small children who walk, bike and play within the area. Moncton has a terrible track record at protecting the overall character of its residential areas and they need to do a better job of this.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Mattyyy

There is nothing inappropriate about this development and residents are well aware that this is zoned R3 and that this day would be coming - especially after the Irving's moved. The only major concern regarding this development is traffic flow via Camelot. The preference would be to not open this into Camelot at all, but rather have traffic flow out to Harrisville. Some may see this as "selfish" however if you have a home in the area you can hardly blame residents for being concerned. With the amount of units to be constructed, it will likely add 3x the vehicle traffic versus what is there today, and this will greatly change the overall feel of the neighbourhood. This is a major issue, especially if you have small children who walk, bike and play within the area. Moncton has a terrible track record at protecting the overall character of its residential areas and they need to do a better job of this.

Thanks for your input. It sounds like you live in the neighbourhood.

This is somewhat of an existential question for urban planning professionals (and enthusiasts) - what exactly is the best plan for suburban street networks???

Urban theory suggests the most efficient way for a city to grow is by simply extending the downtown street grid into to suburban hinterland as far as topography will allow. By doing so, you promote walkability, bicycle usage and efficient traffic flow, with vehicles able to travel from point to point directly rather than having to be diverted to collectors even for a short drive within a neighbourhood. This helps to alleviate congestion on the collector routes. A simple grid system also allows for an efficient public transit system to be developed. This all makes perfect sense.

On the other hand, an urban grid road network does raise concerns regarding safety for children in the neighbourhood, and would also make neighbourhoods more noisy and less peaceful. I can appreciate this since I live on a short cul de sac myself, and it's so quiet, its almost like living in the country. As such, I can see both sides of the argument.

Personally, I think the proper course is the middle ground. I do think there is a place for an interconnected street grid at the neighbourhood level to promote easy traffic flow without burdening the main commuter routes with unnecessary local traffic. At the same time, cul de sacs are not an evil concept, and, as long as they are short, should be able to coexist within an effective grid system.

I also think that traffic calming on the neighbourhood street grid is very important. This can be accomplished by narrowing the streets, allowing on street parking, and allowing gentle curves in the roadway (this promotes driver alertness, and increases visual interest).

I think suburban monoculture is to be abhorred, and that small commercial nodes should exist in every neighbourhood, containing essential services like convenience stores, hairdressers, small professional offices and the like. This would also promote walkability, active transport, and discourage car use. Why does anyone need to hop into a car and drive a couple of km to pick up a litre of milk or some eggs?

There is a middle ground out there.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Thanks for your input. It sounds like you live in the neighbourhood.

This is somewhat of an existential question for urban planning professionals (and enthusiasts) - what exactly is the best plan for suburban street networks???

Urban theory suggests the most efficient way for a city to grow is by simply extending the downtown street grid into to suburban hinterland as far as topography will allow. By doing so, you promote walkability, bicycle usage and efficient traffic flow, with vehicles able to travel from point to point directly rather than having to be diverted to collectors even for a short drive within a neighbourhood. This helps to alleviate congestion on the collector routes. A simple grid system also allows for an efficient public transit system to be developed. This all makes perfect sense.

On the other hand, an urban grid road network does raise concerns regarding safety for children in the neighbourhood, and would also make neighbourhoods more noisy and less peaceful. I can appreciate this since I live on a short cul de sac myself, and it's so quiet, its almost like living in the country. As such, I can see both sides of the argument.

Personally, I think the proper course is the middle ground. I do think there is a place for an interconnected street grid at the neighbourhood level to promote easy traffic flow without burdening the main commuter routes with unnecessary local traffic. At the same time, cul de sacs are not an evil concept, and, as long as they are short, should be able to coexist within an effective grid system.

I also think that traffic calming on the neighbourhood street grid is very important. This can be accomplished by narrowing the streets, allowing on street parking, and allowing gentle curves in the roadway (this promotes driver alertness, and increases visual interest).

I think suburban monoculture is to be abhorred, and that small commercial nodes should exist in every neighbourhood, containing essential services like convenience stores, hairdressers, small professional offices and the like. This would also promote walkability, active transport, and discourage car use. Why does anyone need to hop into a car and drive a couple of km to pick up a litre of milk or some eggs?

There is a middle ground out there.

I would say that most subdivisions have been designed in a way that the majority of traffic is concentrated on a handful of streets that could be considered the arterials of the neighbourhood. This results in traffic being disproportionately distributed through the subdivision, with the crescents, cul-de-sacs, and small connecting streets benefiting from that design but the arteries suffering. This is generally only accepted due to the nature of how development took place – the arteries were almost always serving that purpose right from the beginning, and if you bought a house there, it was a known quantity.

This disparity in traffic is a bit unfair for various reasons: The design of the arteries tends to encourages higher speeds, the types of residences and lots are similar to those on the quieter streets, etc.

If you later connect a street and effectively convert a quiet neighbourhood street that mostly only sees local traffic into more of an arterial route, there's obviously going to be backlash from the residents, particularly if nothing is done to calm that traffic.

Using a grid system mitigates a lot of this. Traffic is more dispersed to begin with because there's isn't one or two obvious (or even required) routes for the majority of the neighbourhood's residents. Rather, everyone can choose a route that is most convenient to them. If a residential street is used as a short cut and traffic increases and/or people are racing through that street, there are mechanisms that can be used to slow people down and/or dissuade them from taking that route, with minimal impact on the convenience for the residents themselves.

I live within a gridded neighbourhood in downtown Fredericton. Arguably, it was the first "subdivision" outside of Fredericton's downtown core and as such has some trappings of what we think of to be the traditional subdivision including several cul-de-sacs. As you pointed out, they can be fine as long as they are short. They also serve to provide some breaks to the grid pattern which prevents some through traffic. I live on a short street within this grid and it is incredibly quiet. Arguably as quiet as any cul-de-sac. Despite this I have a total of six different options to enter my neighbourhood to get to my house. Within the neighbourhood as it is bounded by arterial routes, none of the streets sees traffic that is an order of magnitude higher than the others. It's extremely well balanced and at the same time very walkable since there is no need to make large detours due to the design of the street system.

I think that following a basic modified grid pattern is ultimately far superior for everyone involved.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OliverD

I think that following a basic modified grid pattern is ultimately far superior for everyone involved.

Indeed - fully interconnected subdivisions with allowance for some short streets and short cul de sacs, street calming measures where necessary, allowance for some neighbourhood commercial on residential streets, a grid pattern with some curvature to the street grid, relatively narrow streets with on street parking allowed, low tolerance for speeding, and encouragement for active transportation and effective public transit.

[adamuptownsj]

It's not like this is some ancient bucolic country town being swallowed up by suburbia- the unconnected streets are pretty obvious to anyone with two eyes from ground level, let alone Google Maps, and people should be a little less surprised when they open up.

Worth noting as density increases connecting these roads becomes a more pressing priority, so it may as well be done while the construction equipment is in the area, or you end up with multi decade messes like Saint John's Germain/Ross/Lower Cove 'nontersection'.

Traffic flow is certainly going to increase, but wouldn't most of it naturally flow E/W along Warner/Marriott instead of up through Camelot (what a cringey subdivision name, almost as bad as the Robin Hood one in Quispamsis) to Shediac Road?

I'm not too familiar with the area so I could be totally wrong.

[josh_cat_eyes]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

It's not like this is some ancient bucolic country town being swallowed up by suburbia- the unconnected streets are pretty obvious to anyone with two eyes from ground level, let alone Google Maps, and people should be a little less surprised when they open up.

Worth noting as density increases connecting these roads becomes a more pressing priority, so it may as well be done while the construction equipment is in the area, or you end up with multi decade messes like Saint John's Germain/Ross/Lower Cove 'nontersection'.

Traffic flow is certainly going to increase, but wouldn't most of it naturally flow E/W along Warner/Marriott instead of up through Camelot (what a cringey subdivision name, almost as bad as the Robin Hood one in Quispamsis) to Shediac Road?

I'm not too familiar with the area so I could be totally wrong.

I think assuming that Camelot was connected to this new Warner/Marriot street that it would likely funnel mostly out to Harrisville. I think some of it would still go north to Shediac Road but for the most part it will likely go out to Harrisville. Also if Camelot is connected, they might as well connect Drayton street too.

[MonctonRad]

There are now components of a mini-tower crane (not yet assembled) on site for this development planned adjacent to Harrisville Blvd, north of Shediac Road.