Haifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission

[Keith P.]

The Bridge Commission is wasting no time:



I am very disappointed that they will not be saving the original toll booths from the Macdonald, as they are one of the few examples of East German/Soviet Bloc architecture to be found in North America. Such a loss.

[IanWatson]

I wonder if they'll reconfigure lanes at the approach at all. I also wonder how they're going to police big trucks now.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I wonder if they'll reconfigure lanes at the approach at all. I also wonder how they're going to police big trucks now.

This was on my mind tonight too while I sat on the MacKay watching the wind shaking the bridge.

I think some form of the Bridge Patrol will live on since they do need dedicated enforcement for;

- Emergency Bridge Closures (MHI, Evacuations, Structural Issues)
- Traffic Accidents
- Turning Trucks off of MacDonald Bridge (I see this one a lot)
- High-Sided Vehicle Closures
- Monitoring Boat Traffic to avoid a Baltimore incident
- Lane reversals on MacDonald Bridge

If the Bridge Patrol were to disappear these issues would be hard to monitor since we don't have a provincial police force to pass all of this onto.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The Bridge Commission is wasting no time:



I am very disappointed that they will not be saving the original toll booths from the Macdonald, as they are one of the few examples of East German/Soviet Bloc architecture to be found in North America. Such a loss.

Well Keith I can show you my pieces of the Berlin Wall and glass from Check point Charlie if the melancholy really strikes.

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I am very disappointed that they will not be saving the original toll booths from the Macdonald, as they are one of the few examples of East German/Soviet Bloc architecture to be found in North America. Such a loss.

For the record, your chance to acquire a Soviet-style toll booth for an in-law suite is long past. The original painted steel booths were replaced some years ago -- I want to say at the time of the Big Lift in 2015-2016 but it may have been earlier, around the time of the 1999 refit -- by the current prefab stainless steel models.

HHB has posted the new configuration for the Macdonald approaches. The plan for the McKay is still to come.


Source: Halifax Harbour Bridges

[terrynorthend]

They'll need to get the signal timing at the intersection just right or this will be a big mess. I don't like how the 2 left from Wyse lanes + diamond lane just sort of squeeze into 2 or often one with the reversing bridge lane. The tolls and funnel merge naturally govern this now.

The right turn from Wyse will need it's own dedicated time, can't remember if that's the case now or if it combines with straight from Nantucket. That would be messy if it does.

Originally Posted by ns_kid

For the record, your chance to acquire a Soviet-style toll booth for an in-law suite is long past. The original painted steel booths were replaced some years ago -- I want to say at the time of the Big Lift in 2015-2016 but it may have been earlier, around the time of the 1999 refit -- by the current prefab stainless steel models.

HHB has posted the new configuration for the Macdonald approaches. The plan for the McKay is still to come.


Source: Halifax Harbour Bridges

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

They'll need to get the signal timing at the intersection just right or this will be a big mess. I don't like how the 2 left from Wyse lanes + diamond lane just sort of squeeze into 2 or often one with the reversing bridge lane. The tolls and funnel merge naturally govern this now.

The right turn from Wyse will need it's own dedicated time, can't remember if that's the case now or if it combines with straight from Nantucket. That would be messy if it does.

Currently WYSE (SB) right onto the the bridge has it's own signal that does not conflict with any other movements. In heavy traffic it does become an issue because other cars who arrive later will block that flow thinking they have the ROW. There is a NROR here. I don't see this movement changing unless they put an adjustable barrier up to match the reversing lane (like the Barrington ramp).

The few things I see;

- It appears the WYSE (NB) left onto the Bridge will prioritize the transit lane which is great.

- The BRIDGE (EB) right onto Wyse looks different. It might just be a simplification for the drawing. I think the current yield scenario is the best.

- The BRIDGE (EB) left onto Wyse is not designed well. There is no storage lane and the left-turn light is significantly shorter than the straight-thru. The vehicles wanting to turn left will clog up traffic wanting to continue straight onto Nantucket. I use this left-turn daily and there is always a queue even in off-peak times. This is because for traffic heading north towards Burnside it is quicker, smoother, and less traffic lights to use Wyse Road than Victoria Road. Part of the inefficiency of Nantucket is caused by the stupid traffic lights which prioritize shortcutting traffic using School Street over the very busy Nantucket to Victoria NB movement.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

For the record, your chance to acquire a Soviet-style toll booth for an in-law suite is long past. The original painted steel booths were replaced some years ago -- I want to say at the time of the Big Lift in 2015-2016 but it may have been earlier, around the time of the 1999 refit -- by the current prefab stainless steel models.

The booths themselves were updated but my reference was to the overhead structure, which is the original 1950s design (if I can call it that) which was never updated and remained extremely ugly.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

.

- The BRIDGE (EB) left onto Wyse is not designed well. There is no storage lane and the left-turn light is significantly shorter than the straight-thru. The vehicles wanting to turn left will clog up traffic wanting to continue straight onto Nantucket. I use this left-turn daily and there is always a queue even in off-peak times. This is because for traffic heading north towards Burnside it is quicker, smoother, and less traffic lights to use Wyse Road than Victoria Road. Part of the inefficiency of Nantucket is caused by the stupid traffic lights which prioritize shortcutting traffic using School Street over the very busy Nantucket to Victoria NB movement.

From what I can see that left turn lane will need an immediate rethink if it is indeed as illustrated. It is quite common to have left turn traffic backed up through the funnel and stopped in the center lane of the bridge itself at peak times. That tiny left turn lane after the former tolls will be overwhelmed very quickly. I can see no reason for it to be the way that is illustrated. HRM also needs to undo the re-timing of the lights for WB Nantucket traffic at Wyse which HRM/Sam Austin tinkered with a few years ago to unsynchronize from the lights at the Sportsplex/DSC which creates significant backups heading to the bridge.

[Patrick Matthews]

The lanes with barriers seemed a great way to sort high sided vehicles with or without tolls. Curious how they will close the bridge to high sided vehicles, or close in general.

[terrynorthend]

The bridge commission has released the revamped McKay lane plans. Looks much better than the MacDonald. It essentially just keeps the two lane Circ. (West of Victoria Road) straight onto the bridge.

[q12]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

The bridge commission has released the revamped McKay lane plans. Looks much better than the MacDonald. It essentially just keeps the two lane Circ. (West of Victoria Road) straight onto the bridge.

[q12]

Source: Waterfront Media Halifax (S Dewitt)
https://twitter.com/HfxMda/status/1900876775401349409


Source: Waterfront Media Halifax (S Dewitt)
https://twitter.com/HfxMda/status/1900876775401349409


Source: Waterfront Media Halifax (S Dewitt)
https://twitter.com/HfxMda/status/1900876775401349409

[q12]

• Video Link

[Keith P.]

I had a thought while crossing the Macdonald the other day. I will defer to others as to whether this would be worth pursuing.

I understand that the MacKay was rather lightly-constructed and that is a big reason why it needs replacement soon. It just cannot take the wear and tear and is falling apart, a disquieting thought.

However I understand that the Macdonald, being a 1950s design, is built much more robustly and that is what allowed it to handle the addition of a third lane and the bike and pedestrian decks cantivered over the edges. Just looking at the structure it certainly seems more heavily-built. I was crossing it the other day and noticed two things. The temporary structure constructed on the Dartmouth tower for whatever it is they are doing to it was fully in place, and also at some point I noticed that the overhead sign structures above the roadway appeared to have been replaced with new ones, which I seem to have missed. They looked different to me though so I assume that was done.

Looking at the level where both of those things were affixed, it occurred to me that there seemed to be plenty of room for another deck overhead to fit within the existing tower structures. Many other bridges have done this, like the GWB in NYC, to handle growth. Here, the existing towers might not be able to handle more than 2 additional lanes overhead, I'm unsure, and it may be that the existing deck level might need to lose part of 1 lane to handle whatever supports an upper deck may require, but you are still getting additional capacity. If one lane of the existing deck needs to be sacrificed that might still leave enough for a pedestrian path and the existing poorly-used cycling lane.

I do not know if any studies or analysis on this were ever done but it would be nice to explore the idea. Reconfiguring the exits and intersections at either end would of course be necessary but that has been needed for a long time in any event. That would also bury the silly bike lane flyover proposal on the Halifax side as the upper deck would need to deal with vehicle traffic in a similar way itself, so fold the bikers into that. Logically it seems to my layman self that Halifax-bound traffic would be the logical candidate for an upper level to eliminate the at-grade intersection in Dartmouth coming down Nantucket which has been recently bottlenecked further by Sam Austin's traffic signal and intersection changes to delay that flow significantly, and provide a way to reduce the grade when landing on the Halifax side.

[terrynorthend]

It may be possible, but if it only adds 2 lanes to the upper deck, and loses an existing lane on the lower deck, it's only a net gain of one lane of traffic, and would probably cost at least half the price of a 3rd bridge.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I had a thought while crossing the Macdonald the other day. I will defer to others as to whether this would be worth pursuing.

I understand that the MacKay was rather lightly-constructed and that is a big reason why it needs replacement soon. It just cannot take the wear and tear and is falling apart, a disquieting thought.

However I understand that the Macdonald, being a 1950s design, is built much more robustly and that is what allowed it to handle the addition of a third lane and the bike and pedestrian decks cantivered over the edges. Just looking at the structure it certainly seems more heavily-built. I was crossing it the other day and noticed two things. The temporary structure constructed on the Dartmouth tower for whatever it is they are doing to it was fully in place, and also at some point I noticed that the overhead sign structures above the roadway appeared to have been replaced with new ones, which I seem to have missed. They looked different to me though so I assume that was done.

Looking at the level where both of those things were affixed, it occurred to me that there seemed to be plenty of room for another deck overhead to fit within the existing tower structures. Many other bridges have done this, like the GWB in NYC, to handle growth. Here, the existing towers might not be able to handle more than 2 additional lanes overhead, I'm unsure, and it may be that the existing deck level might need to lose part of 1 lane to handle whatever supports an upper deck may require, but you are still getting additional capacity. If one lane of the existing deck needs to be sacrificed that might still leave enough for a pedestrian path and the existing poorly-used cycling lane.

I do not know if any studies or analysis on this were ever done but it would be nice to explore the idea. Reconfiguring the exits and intersections at either end would of course be necessary but that has been needed for a long time in any event. That would also bury the silly bike lane flyover proposal on the Halifax side as the upper deck would need to deal with vehicle traffic in a similar way itself, so fold the bikers into that. Logically it seems to my layman self that Halifax-bound traffic would be the logical candidate for an upper level to eliminate the at-grade intersection in Dartmouth coming down Nantucket which has been recently bottlenecked further by Sam Austin's traffic signal and intersection changes to delay that flow significantly, and provide a way to reduce the grade when landing on the Halifax side.

[Keith P.]

I am no engineer so I do not know if a lane on the existing deck would need to be narrower or not. Nor do I know if the theoretical upper deck could handle more than 2 lanes. All that would need figuring out.

It is disappointing to have ideas I have never heard discussed before dismissed out of hand. The Halifax way, I suppose

[terrynorthend]

Fair play. I'm not an engineer either, so I have no idea as well. I did make a point while driving across last evening to visually size up the towers. I think you are right though, so long as the structural arch above the roadway is in place, and accounting for minimum traffic clearance and the trusses to support a second deck, there would probably only be room for two lanes up top. Might still be able to preserve 3 on the lower deck depending how the deck is attached. That would at least net 2 lanes.

Personally I'd rather see a 3rd crossing from Woodside 111 to the Halterm/Pier 21 area. That would immediately solve the truck traffic problem, and greatly reduce the pressure on the Macdonald, giving a second major access to downtown.

I don't see any quick solution to the Halifax approaches to the Macdonald. It's a gridlock dead-end.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I am no engineer so I do not know if a lane on the existing deck would need to be narrower or not. Nor do I know if the theoretical upper deck could handle more than 2 lanes. All that would need figuring out.

It is disappointing to have ideas I have never heard discussed before dismissed out of hand. The Halifax way, I suppose

[OldDartmouthMark]

This is an intriguing idea.

Without having taken the time to think it through more clearly, I’m thinking that without a plan in place to deal with the bottlenecks in the vicinity of the approaches, it could just turn out to be an exercise in finding the next weak link in traffic flow.

One thought I had is that maybe a second deck could be used as a dedicated BRT/LRT route, but that would also require additional planning, which seems to be a weak point for council these days. They seem to get through the “active transportation” part of it and then run out of steam.

One unknown to me is how you would hang the extra deck from the existing towers. As a suspension bridge, there would need to be a second set of cables from which to hang the new deck, and I imagine that they would have to be stepped inward to avoid interference with the existing set. This would change the loading significantly, so an extensive engineering study would have to be done before it was even considered as a possibility (and maybe one was done?).

Just musing a little. I like the outside-of-the-box thinking. I wish the people in power did more of this.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This is an intriguing idea.

Without having taken the time to think it through more clearly, I’m thinking that without a plan in place to deal with the bottlenecks in the vicinity of the approaches, it could just turn out to be an exercise in finding the next weak link in traffic flow.

One thought I had is that maybe a second deck could be used as a dedicated BRT/LRT route, but that would also require additional planning, which seems to be a weak point for council these days. They seem to get through the “active transportation” part of it and then run out of steam.

One unknown to me is how you would hang the extra deck from the existing towers. As a suspension bridge, there would need to be a second set of cables from which to hang the new deck, and I imagine that they would have to be stepped inward to avoid interference with the existing set. This would change the loading significantly, so an extensive engineering study would have to be done before it was even considered as a possibility (and maybe one was done?).

Just musing a little. I like the outside-of-the-box thinking. I wish the people in power did more of this.

Your points are why I initially said that two lanes would be all the upper level could handle. But who knows. It is all an engineering question. I did foresee the theoretical upper level being Halifax-bound from Dartmouth. That would allow it to be suspended above grade on the Halifax side and connect to earth partway up the hill prior to Gottingen, eliminating much of that obstacle for cyclists. You would still need to do something to assist flow (or provide an alternative path) on North St just beyond that, which is a long-standing bottleneck that has never been addressed.

If the upper deck is going to Halifax, it might also provide an opportunity to fix the Dartmouth approaches by overheading them partway down Nantucket and avoiding the Wyse Rd intersection entirely for through traffic. Ever since Sam Austin tinkered with the timing of the traffic signals there to accommodate whatever he sought to accommodate, the flow of the morning commute has been choked down significantly.