Haifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Please educate me on the bottleneck at Morse’s. Is the entry to Historic Properties not across the street?

Looks pretty tight to me!

The bike lane here connects into the new Cogswell bike lanes (which are very good) and leads onto the Barrington Greenway. It's the best possible connection between downtown and points north, and the only way out of downtown by bike that isn't intimidatingly hilly. It's kind of necessary for the bike network. To scrap it for a car lane would mean sacrificing an A+ bike route for a D- car route.

[Keith P.]

Ah, my memory was playing tricks on me and I had forgotten about the two old stone buildings adjacent to the Marriott. That space is a lost cause then.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Ah, my memory was playing tricks on me and I had forgotten about the two old stone buildings adjacent to the Marriott. That space is a lost cause then.

Yeah. I think there could probably be some improvements to Lower Water traffic by closing some of the driveay entrances (e.g. the Salter lot has three), but the reality is it's simply not possible to accommodate major traffic without major demos of built heritage (ala the waterfront parkway proposal that spawned the Heritage Trust).

The future probably depends more on the efforts to turn Robie into a higher order transit corridor (even if it means losing some big trees and a couple of Victorians). It will also help that other areas of town are becoming centres in their own right - we don't need to bring everyone downtown.

[terrynorthend]

I'm just happy they put a proper traffic light on that corner for pedestrians. It always terrified me driving north along LWS that somebody would wander around the corner of that building right in front of me!

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Ah, my memory was playing tricks on me and I had forgotten about the two old stone buildings adjacent to the Marriott. That space is a lost cause then.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Small sample size, but I found this to be interesting:

Halifax-Dartmouth bridge collisions down 43% since tolls removed, data shows

If the trend continues, it seems like there could be a benefit to removing the tolls that nobody had openly predicted.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Small sample size, but I found this to be interesting:

Halifax-Dartmouth bridge collisions down 43% since tolls removed, data shows

If the trend continues, it seems like there could be a benefit to removing the tolls that nobody had openly predicted.

I found that interesting as well. I had assumed (incorrectly, it seems) that the tolls helped "sort" traffic and manage potential collisions.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Anecdotally, with the tolls in place you have drivers changing lanes to get to a faster toll, jockeying to go from several lanes back into 2 after leaving the tolls, having to slow down quickly when they arrive upon lines of vehicles when the tolls were backed up, and actually hitting the toll plaza itself (usually trucks).

Now, the old toll area seems to function mostly like a regular highway with on and off ramps.

It would be interesting to see a study with actual case facts and data, but I don’t know if anything like that would ever happen.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Anecdotally, with the tolls in place you have drivers changing lanes to get to a faster toll, jockeying to go from several lanes back into 2 after leaving the tolls, having to slow down quickly when they arrive upon lines of vehicles when the tolls were backed up, and actually hitting the toll plaza itself (usually trucks).

Now, the old toll area seems to function mostly like a regular highway with on and off ramps.

It would be interesting to see a study with actual case facts and data, but I don’t know if anything like that would ever happen.

The same reporting says that traffic volumes have increased since the tolls were removed... which I suspect is not indicating much improvement in congestion, lol.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

The same reporting says that traffic volumes have increased since the tolls were removed... which I suspect is not indicating much improvement in congestion, lol.

I'm merely guessing but I wonder if all those trucks smashing into the roof of the toll booths almost daily helped spike the number of accidents. That, and as others mentioned, the changing lanes into a toll, then zipping across a couple lanes immediately after also contributed.

The volume of traffic is up since the removal (as anticipated)

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

The same reporting says that traffic volumes have increased since the tolls were removed... which I suspect is not indicating much improvement in congestion, lol.

Which probably means that some congestion has been removed from other routes?

IMHO that’s difficult to parse out anecdotally, as the massive influx of new residents in recent years has increased traffic volume everywhere. No matter how you look at it, though, increased traffic volume combined with fewer incidents sounds like a success to me.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

I'm merely guessing but I wonder if all those trucks smashing into the roof of the toll booths almost daily helped spike the number of accidents. That, and as others mentioned, the changing lanes into a toll, then zipping across a couple lanes immediately after also contributed.

The volume of traffic is up since the removal (as anticipated)

I mentioned all this to my wife, who travels the bridges often for work, and her anecdotal comment was that her gut feeling was that while the increase in traffic after the tolls were removed has made things flow better (in the sense of less stopping) that the increase in overall traffic has meant that people are travelling at a lower rate of speed on average while driving across the bridge. She wondered whether people being forced to drive slower on average, as compared to stopping as you enter the toll stations and then gunning it to merge back together, led to fewer accidents. Who knows.

[someone123]

You can have more traffic and less congestion together by reducing friction like tolls.

I wonder if there is any analysis of the economic impact of the decision and the pluses of the value of these extra trips and lessened accidents (insurance costs, property damage, health, first responders) vs. the cost of removing the tolls.

All that being said, there are highways and bridges in North America with cameras that toll traffic moving at highway speeds. These bridges had outdated toll systems.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by someone123

You can have more traffic and less congestion together by reducing friction like tolls....

I suspect we're talking about less friction/congestion ON the bridges... what about the measure of congestion on the surrounding street grid. My observation seems to be that Robie, Agricola, and North streets are pretty gross most mornings. Anecdotal and not measured... just what it looks/feels like on my commute.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Based on a recent Fred Tilly comment it would seem the apartment building on the left in this photo is not long for this world as it is likely the landing spot for the MacKay bridge replacement. Aesthetically not a great loss.

BridgeBuild by A.J. Forsythe, on Flickr

[ArchAficionado]

Hopefully that means that the new bridge is actually being actively planned. Not sure why the wouldn't build the replacement outbound/north of the existing bridge though, as the south side does abut an existing neighbourhood.

I desperately hope that the city/province has some level of foresight with the massive expense of a new bridge. Space to add an LRT deck, for example, if not originally built, would be a key upgrade (See: Champlain Bridge in Montreal as what to do, and Ile au Tourtes Bridge as what not to do).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Wherever they put it, they should overspec the bridge for loading and build it such that it can have capacity and capability to be added on into the future.

Longevity should be a consideration as well. It can’t be unnoticed that the Macdonald Bridge, which is a quarter century older than the MacKay, has been modified for increased capacity, and there is no discussion that I’m aware of that is indicating an end to its lifespan. Meanwhile, it’s well known that the MacKay was built on the cheap and thus can’t be added to, is at the end of its service life, and now has to be replaced.

Some significant investment now will save big in the future.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

:Longevity should be a consideration as well. It can’t be unnoticed that the Macdonald Bridge, which is a quarter century older than the MacKay, has been modified for increased capacity, and there is no discussion that I’m aware of that is indicating an end to its lifespan.

Worth noting also that the Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver, a bridge designed by the same engineers, Monsarrat and Pratley, and almost identical to the MacDonald Bridge, is 17 years older and there are no plans to replace it, it was also re-decked in 2001 by the same firm that re-decked the MacDonald Bridge. I've also heard nothing indicating that the Lions Gate Bridge is nearing the end of its life. Certainly a couple of very robust bridges.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by connect2source

Worth noting also that the Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver, a bridge designed by the same engineers, Monsarrat and Pratley, and almost identical to the MacDonald Bridge, is 17 years older and there are no plans to replace it, it was also re-decked in 2001 by the same firm that re-decked the MacDonald Bridge. I've also heard nothing indicating that the Lions Gate Bridge is nearing the end of its life. Certainly a couple of very robust bridges.

Noted. I recall how familiar the Lions Gate felt when I first drove over it (or more accurately waited in a traffic jam on it).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by connect2source

Worth noting also that the Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver, a bridge designed by the same engineers, Monsarrat and Pratley, and almost identical to the MacDonald Bridge, is 17 years older and there are no plans to replace it, it was also re-decked in 2001 by the same firm that re-decked the MacDonald Bridge. I've also heard nothing indicating that the Lions Gate Bridge is nearing the end of its life. Certainly a couple of very robust bridges.

The idea that buildings have a lifespan and approach end of life is something I haven't heard nearly as much outside of a NS context. There are buildings with engineering flaws or components that wear out and discussions about whether it's worth maintaining them. Europe has many 800 year old wooden buildings.

[Offshore1]

Originally Posted by someone123

The idea that buildings have a lifespan and approach end of life is something I haven't heard nearly as much outside of a NS context. There are buildings with engineering flaws or components that wear out and discussions about whether it's worth maintaining them. Europe has many 800 year old wooden buildings.

A short lifespan like is being discussed strikes me as odd. The Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco was completed in 1937. It had a retrofit about 20 years later to prevent twisting in the wind and deck replacement (40% lighter) done over 4 years from 1982 - 1986. I haven't seen any mention of a design lifespan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Bridge