Highway 107 Upgrades (Burnside Expressway) | U/C

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by fatscat

Thank you for this. It's a well reasoned response and I appreciate you taking the time to type it out (and cite some data in the process)

The point of funding is a good one in that, it is funded by an already strained municipal government so what goes to active transport is the crumbs left over. In return, we get bread crumbs for infrastructure. I'd be interested to see some funding from provincial levels towards active infrastructure (not sure if this is a thing)

Regarding cycling data. There's a Twitter account which tracks what it can (open data): https://twitter.com/BikeHfxStats

On a sunny day in August this year, we're seeing ~1,500 trips daily. This is on an area with a radius of about 6km, and it does not account for various paths + bike lanes which do not have [activated] counters (COLT, Bayers Mup, Barrington Greenway, etc). The account publishes weekly/monthly/yearly summaries too.

And this isn't necessarily for a group of "very specific local residents", but rather a range of commuters starting from the peninsula/Dartmouth to coming from the inner burbs like Clayton Park and Fairview.

So, pretty good numbers given the abysmal infrastructure! This is why I wonder what things would look like if we just spent .. a tiny bit more (a drop in comparison to highway spend!). And of course, the tradeoff here is more cars off the road.

Ultimately, I agree with you both can co-exist and they are operating in entirely different worlds when it comes to needs/planning/budget/leadership. Both "sides" have their biases and how funding should be spent, so it's not something I think is useful to debate, but rather, simply listen and understand different perspectives.

Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful reply!

Thanks for the cycling data. I have to say that it's more than I thought it would be, and I'm happy to see it. Granted, it is probably a maximum given the time of year and weather, but it does show us that the potential is out there. I've never been much of a numbers guy in my spare time (though my career is very data-centric), and it always seems a little cringey to relate budget for safety items to number of users, but it would be hard for anyone to argue that protecting potentially 1500 users per day from safety hazards is not worth spending money on.

I should correct myself as well, as I recall that the last cycling infrastructure budget I read about did have some fed and provincial money involved, but I'm not sure if that was a one time thing or not (I'm thinking it was).

One thing that will perpetually irk me is the glacial speed with which infrastructure tends to be built around here. The cycling infrastructure is very slow to happen, but not unlike the 107 bypass (the subject of this thread to which I hope we will now return), which has been in the works for more than 30 years and still isn't near completion. Oh well, at least it is happening...

[Dengler Avenue]

Also it’s interesting that Burnside Connector is built with a concrete median barrier right from the get go instead of a wide grassy median.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Also it’s interesting that Burnside Connector is built with a concrete median barrier right from the get go instead of a wide grassy median.

I'm guessing that has more to do with available space than anything else, as the Magazine Hill/Hwy 7 to Sackville is built that way, as is the 102 from Halifax to Fall River, after which it expands to divided with grassy medians all the way to Truro, I believe. Perhaps someone with a civil engineering background in highway design can chime in, but my impression is that divided with a grassy median is the safest, as it provides runoff space vs hitting a concrete wall and bouncing back into traffic, but still providing a barrier preventing head-on collisions.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks for the cycling data. I have to say that it's more than I thought it would be, and I'm happy to see it. Granted, it is probably a maximum given the time of year and weather, but it does show us that the potential is out there.

Those numbers are highly dubious and do not jibe with simple observation of the usually-empty bike lanes. Even at that, a few local lanes connecting the area of student rental housing to Dal and SMU does not justify the other largely abandoned and unnecessary lanes HRM is using to wreck streets elsewhere.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Those numbers are highly dubious and do not jibe with simple observation of the usually-empty bike lanes. Even at that, a few local lanes connecting the area of student rental housing to Dal and SMU does not justify the other largely abandoned and unnecessary lanes HRM is using to wreck streets elsewhere.

Yes it seems the car hating plan is not quite working.Those daily trips are probably about at max 750 individuals with return trips. Hardly worth the wait in traffic times on say Lower Water street. Its at least a 5-7 minute trip by car any time of the day as the adjacent bike lane sits unused.

[MonctonRad]

I hate to break to to you, but there are at least some car haters on the forum.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

It's nonsense to criticize government spending when it's in the billions of dollars? Also I'd like a figure for how much it'll cost in maintenance in the years to come.

Think of all the other ways government can be spending all of this money on things more important, like housing, transit, or health care. But no, the commute times of people who live in the boonies and want to go to Halifax is totally worth the astronomical costs and should never be questioned.

Plus, we know this road will just be backlogged in the future and lead to more cars in Halifax and add to congestion, air pollution, noise pollution, and making the a more unpleasant place to be.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Those numbers are highly dubious and do not jibe with simple observation of the usually-empty bike lanes. Even at that, a few local lanes connecting the area of student rental housing to Dal and SMU does not justify the other largely abandoned and unnecessary lanes HRM is using to wreck streets elsewhere.

I drive a car or two (or more...), but really don't see cycle lanes as being an impediment. I think it's better for both parties to each have a lane designated for them. Not always convenient, but I wouldn't want to be on either side of a car-bike collision, so why not do something to avoid them. (Note: this is definitely not an endorsement for curb bump-outs, which seem to be the biggest waste of concrete I've seen yet, and do not practically improve safety for anyone...).

Regardless, I don't see watering down this thread with yet another debate about cycling lanes as being very productive, so IMHO it would be cool to stay on topic.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I drive a car or two (or more...), but really don't see cycle lanes as being an impediment. I think it's better for both parties to each have a lane designated for them. Not always convenient, but I wouldn't want to be on either side of a car-bike collision, so why not do something to avoid them. (Note: this is definitely not an endorsement for curb bump-outs, which seem to be the biggest waste of concrete I've seen yet, and do not practically improve safety for anyone...).

Regardless, I don't see watering down this thread with yet another debate about cycling lanes as being very productive, so IMHO it would be cool to stay on topic.

I’m a huge bike lane proponent, as well as a twinning proponent. I don’t believe that they are mutually exclusive. In terms of twinning, I actually don’t see why we don’t have tolls. If the bridge commission can do it and be financially independent, why can’t the roads.

I don’t believe that the same arguments for private vs. Public healthcare apply to highways,…or at least create a commission/authority with the ability to issue debt.

I know of two people that died on the 103. One of them was working,…they couldn’t have taken a train.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I drive a car or two (or more...), but really don't see cycle lanes as being an impediment. I think it's better for both parties to each have a lane designated for them.

That might make sense if there were parties on both sides of the discussion. As it is, the two-wheeled side is largely absent in using the infrastructure. It is as if we built separate lanes for horse-and-buggy users.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That might make sense if there were parties on both sides of the discussion. As it is, the two-wheeled side is largely absent in using the infrastructure. It is as if we built separate lanes for horse-and-buggy users.

That's a ridiculous statement!

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

That's a ridiculous statement!

Well, likely many of us have been on Lwr. Water St. many times and have not seen a single bicycle using the lane. I've personally encouraged others not to walk in the bicycle lane just-in-case one should happen by. I've been wondering how the bus plan for Lwr. Water is progressing. I was thinking that with the closure of the parking lot at the court house and the eventual build of Art Gallery NS causing no parking there, that maybe the plan is to force all cars off of Lwr. Water? But back to the 107, I wonder if the AT plan for Magazine Hill is still on the books? Clearly Windmill Rd at the base of Burnside needs a revamp which would hopefully include AT infrastructure. A bicycle route from Lower Sackville leading to the eventual bus terminal at Wright's Cove and/or the eventual ferry terminal at Shannon Park would be great.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Well, likely many of us have been on Lwr. Water St. many times and have not seen a single bicycle using the lane. I've personally encouraged others not to walk in the bicycle lane just-in-case one should happen by. I've been wondering how the bus plan for Lwr. Water is progressing. I was thinking that with the closure of the parking lot at the court house and the eventual build of Art Gallery NS causing no parking there, that maybe the plan is to force all cars off of Lwr. Water? But back to the 107, I wonder if the AT plan for Magazine Hill is still on the books? Clearly Windmill Rd at the base of Burnside needs a revamp which would hopefully include AT infrastructure. A bicycle route from Lower Sackville leading to the eventual bus terminal at Wright's Cove and/or the eventual ferry terminal at Shannon Park would be great.

Impossible. The hill on Dartmouth Rd/Magazine Hill would be impossible for cyclists, as evidenced by the much more benign hill from Barrington up to the Macdonald bike lane which apparently requires a $15 million flyover ramp. One for Magazine Hill would logically need to be several miles long on both ends to make the slope manageable and perhaps cost in the $100,000,000 range. Or perhaps a tunnel under the hill in the same cost range.

Interesting to see an article today about the cycling lobby calling for improved infrastructure in the north end of the peninsula and the comments were virtually all very negative. The sentiment of the tax paying public is that they are done with HRM wasting money on unused infrastructure for a very entitled by tiny group. Finally people are taking notice.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

It's nonsense to criticize government spending when it's in the billions of dollars? Also I'd like a figure for how much it'll cost in maintenance in the years to come.

Think of all the other ways government can be spending all of this money on things more important, like housing, transit, or health care. But no, the commute times of people who live in the boonies and want to go to Halifax is totally worth the astronomical costs and should never be questioned.

Plus, we know this road will just be backlogged in the future and lead to more cars in Halifax and add to congestion, air pollution, noise pollution, and making the a more unpleasant place to be.

I realize it's hard to put our biases aside in discussions like this, however.

Moving people and goods more safely and efficiently helps the economy, which means more tax dollars for other things.

Also, stow the derision about rural areas. The world does not revolve around cities.

[q12]

This is from a few years ago when they did the survey on twinning costs and priorities along with potential tolls.

Nova Scotia Twinning Study





https://novascotia.ca/twinning/docs/...esentation.pdf


So the 101 to Coldbrook/Kentville from Wolfville should be the priority, now that Windsor is nearly finished, as well as the 107 twinning and new section should be completed to Porter's Lake based on Traffic volumes from probably +7 years ago.

This is what the government of the time decided on:

Province Investing $390 Million to Twin and Improve Safety
Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal
April 26, 2017 10:35 AM

The additional $390 million will allow the province to add three sections of twinned 100-series highways to the existing highway plan. Government will also build the Burnside Connector. All four projects will be complete within seven years.

The four projects are:
-- Highway 101, Three Mile Plains to Falmouth, including the Windsor Causeway, 9.5 kilometres (almost complete)
-- Highway 103, Tantallon to Hubbards, 22 kilometres (almost complete)
-- Highway 104, Sutherlands River to Antigonish, including Barneys River, 38 kilometres (complete)
-- construction of the four-lane, divided Burnside Connector (Highway 107) between Burnside to Bedford, 8.7 kilometres. (almost complete)

https://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20170426003

List of Major Nova Scotia Highway Construction Projects https://novascotia.ca/tran/highways/...onprojects.asp











Source

[Dengler Avenue]

Highway 104 twinning all the way to the causeway? That’s gonna present a break in the freeway.
Also Highway 4 AADT on the south side of Lake Bras d’Or can be tricky: I’m curious if the numbers shown there also accounts for AADT on the 105 on the north side. If not, AADT can easily be 4K which warrants freeway design.

Also 105 from 162 eastward has high traffic and may warrant 4 lanes too. Let me find my design from 2021…

[Antigonish]

I came back to visit family and was happy to see the 104 twinning to Antigonish is complete, although I was driving back at 1am so everything was pitch black. I had also just came back from a trip to the Sydney area on Sunday - took the St. Peter's route up there and the Eskasoni-Iona-Queensville stretch on the way back.

The Port Hawkesbury-St. Peter's stretch appears to be easily twinnable but the route up through Ben Eion / East Bay seems like it would be difficult to twin due to the topography and amount of houses & cottages along the route.

As for the South Shore route discussion from a few pages back, I think it's important to plan these sections ahead of time even if the ADT currently isn't perfectly in line with warranting expansion today. That whole route from Hammonds Plains to Bridgewater is and will be the biggest growth sector in the province going forward; if you want growth you have to plan right now for the capacity upgrades. Our problem here is we only wait until everything is FUBAR before we even go to the planning and design phase while everything is stuck in gridlock and people are dying from preventable accidents in the short-medium term.

I can't believe I'll say this, but look at New Brunswick () for better highway planning and upgrades. Credit where it's due.

[q12]

https://twitter.com/MiningNS/status/1689586429339348993

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

I can't believe I'll say this, but look at New Brunswick () for better highway planning and upgrades. Credit where it's due.

At least we know that we are a drive-thru province. We have to give the customer what he wants - a rapid and hassle free transit through the province, hopefully with no emotionally traumatizing stops along the way (Nova Scotians have such delicate psyches......)

[Keith P.]

Yet every t6ime I drive to Moncton I find the same few sections that, although twinned years ago, follow the same routing as the original TCH and have several curves that are extremely problematic, especially at night. Those seem designed to cause accidents.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yet every t6ime I drive to Moncton I find the same few sections that, although twinned years ago, follow the same routing as the original TCH and have several curves that are extremely problematic, especially at night. Those seem designed to cause accidents.

Agreed. The TCH around Moncton is the most problematic portion of the entire divided highway network in NB.

All they did was twin the pre-existing alignment. No modification at all. They even left in two at grade railway crossings! All this despite the fact the highway around Moncton is the busiest section of the TCH in the entire province.