[Hali87]

You would also have to deal with building platforms on streets - even Talents aren't low floor enough to get away without them (for at least wheelchair boarding).

As long as the height difference isn't too great, couldn't a small raised section/ramp work, rather than building a full platform? I don't think it would be necessary for each entrance to the vehicle to be fully accessible, as long as at least one entrance is.

[Jstaleness]

What do the folks in Vancouver think of the electric trolly buses? I still think Halifax's biggest issue is getting people downtown first and not moving them around once they are here. If we used a similar electric bus on a belt or ring type systems and had the trains bring them to VIA, would that work? I'm don't want to support more sprawl but I'd like to start with a train system to get people into Halifax.

[MalcolmTucker]

As long as the height difference isn't too great, couldn't a small raised section/ramp work, rather than building a full platform? I don't think it would be necessary for each entrance to the vehicle to be fully accessible, as long as at least one entrance is.
Whether a platform is 3m or 30m long, it still creates the same traffic bottleneck at all times.

[someone123]

What do the folks in Vancouver think of the electric trolly buses? I still think Halifax's biggest issue is getting people downtown first and not moving them around once they are here. If we used a similar electric bus on a belt or ring type systems and had the trains bring them to VIA, would that work? I'm don't want to support more sprawl but I'd like to start with a train system to get people into Halifax.

I like them. They are much quieter and cleaner than diesel buses. If they represented a large portion of bus traffic along Barrington or Spring Garden those two streets would be much more pleasant. The downside is that they are stuck more or less on the fixed overheads, although they do have batteries and can drive for a while without line power. They also pop off of the lines occasionally but that is not very common.

Apparently the electrics last longer and are more powerful. I would assume the line power is cheaper than diesel. It is definitely more flexible and can be much more environmentally friendly. Electric buses in Halifax could run off of Churchill Falls power, for example.

I don't really know how much they cost overall compared to diesel buses. To get a good sense of that you'd have to know maintenance costs, fuel costs, the cost to put up the lines, and the cost of the vehicles. I wouldn't be surprised if the overall cost structure were pretty good.

Unfortunately when it comes to transit in Halifax there doesn't seem to be much awareness of the solutions available, nor is there much willingness to follow through on more than the bare minimum. Metro Transit produces very modest 5 year plans -- the highlights are to do things like create an express bus route or build a new bus shed, and these sorts of projects are frequently pushed off.

[MalcolmTucker]

I believe in Edmonton when they decided to get rid of their trolley fleet that replacements are about twice the cost of a conventional bus of the same size. Plus you need a whole different set of mechanics, spare parts.

You also need to find places for substations, which are hard to place due to NIMBY issues, along with general reaction to any overhead lines being put up.

[Hali87]

Whether a platform is 3m or 30m long, it still creates the same traffic bottleneck at all times.

Almost all of the in-street stations would basically be an extension of the sidewalk with some kind of shelter. They could be raised a little bit to accomodate the height difference - the tracks would be running in the lane next to the sidewalk, and could be close enough to the curb (at least at the stations) that passengers could roll on/off via these sloped ramps. Any extra land that would be needed to accomodate this either belongs to the city already or to an institution that would probably go out of their way to support this sort of thing. The only major exception is North Street, and if one of the peninsula stations had to go it would be that one. It's along the narrowest part of Robie and there's hardly any space to work with. Even closing one lane of Robie there could cause some serious traffic issues and part of the final thesis will be looking at ways to deal with this - maybe making this section of Robie 1-way but reversing.

One other station that could be tricky is Hydrostone, but I think this would be easier to deal with. Kaye Street could be rerouted (that intersection doesn't really make sense anyway) or maybe the owners of the house at the corner of Kaye and Young won't mind having a transit vehicle stopping outside the front door every 10 minutes. For some people that would be a nuisance, for others it would be about as convenient as it gets.

I'll adjust the map later tonight so that it's easy to see the sites in street view. I'm working on finding software to model the street-station-sidewalk interface, anybody know of any good programs? Something like the software being used to generate the basic stadium renderings.

[Waye Mason]

This city has an annual capital budget of $120 million. We only spend $25 million a year on metro transit as it is. Just doing commuter rail on existing tracks is $30 million. LRT

I'd love to see street cars/LRT but that is $100s of millions, and we are decades away from being able to consider that expense.

I think it far more likely that we start to create limited bus only/bus way and also HOV lanes to move buses on and off the peninsula and into Burnside faster.

[Hali87]

This city has an annual capital budget of $120 million. We only spend $25 million a year on metro transit as it is. Just doing commuter rail on existing tracks is $30 million. LRT

I'd love to see street cars/LRT but that is $100s of millions, and we are decades away from being able to consider that expense.

I think it far more likely that we start to create limited bus only/bus way and also HOV lanes to move buses on and off the peninsula and into Burnside faster.

There is a Masters thesis from 1997 that proposes a system very similar to mine using DLRT vehicles (single line from Bedford ending at Granville Mall using in-street tracks beyond the Westin) and capital costs were in the range of $15 million. It is available at the municipal public archives in Burnside, and Dal also has copies. I don't think the cost would have gone up that much since then.

[Hali87]

I edited the map to better reflect the station locations. You can see the actual sites in street view - stations would be located on the right side of the streets, looking north. The link again is: http://g.co/maps/xaugs

[halifaxboyns]

This city has an annual capital budget of $120 million. We only spend $25 million a year on metro transit as it is. Just doing commuter rail on existing tracks is $30 million. LRT

I'd love to see street cars/LRT but that is $100s of millions, and we are decades away from being able to consider that expense.

I think it far more likely that we start to create limited bus only/bus way and also HOV lanes to move buses on and off the peninsula and into Burnside faster.

Yes that is a problem - however there may be the potential that the Provincial or Federal Government could contribute to the project through different programs, it will all depend as the economy improves.

There also is the fact that with projects like an LRT or streetcar, you do recover the cost over time with the property tax as redevelopment occurs over the line. Unfortunately it's a very slow process, because the first few years recovers very little and then then increases overtime as more development occurs.

Edmonton got rid of it's overhead system for precisely the reasons explains in an earlier post; locating the substation and the cost. They replaced the system with conventional diesel as I understand it.

[someone123]

This city has an annual capital budget of $120 million. We only spend $25 million a year on metro transit as it is. Just doing commuter rail on existing tracks is $30 million. LRT

I'd love to see street cars/LRT but that is $100s of millions, and we are decades away from being able to consider that expense.

The capital budget is somewhat higher than that and, I think, supports the idea that the city should look at projects in the hundreds of millions.

Funding for these things is generally shared by all 3 levels of government, so the $200M LRT line becomes, say, an $80M expense for the city. These are also major projects with multi-year planning and implementation phases. It is reasonable to consider the amortized cost of the project over a time frame of decades. They don't have to be squeezed into one year's capital budget, just as people might not buy a car with earnings from only one year.

Consider that the City of Vancouver has a capital budget of under $300M. The City of Richmond's budget is considerably smaller. The Canada Line runs through those two municipalities and cost $2B. That project has been a great success and was completely worthwhile for the city.

Obviously every project needs to be sold on its merits relative to its cost. The $30M projects may be great. A $100M+ cost however is not a good reason to immediately rule out a transit project.

[halifaxboyns]

With a streetcar project; you can also recover some costs by means of a local improvement levy on all the property along the line that would be subject to new zoning to encourage redevelopment.

Yet again, another slow means of recovering the cost - but it's still another way.

I also have to say, I love the Canada line. It is such a joy to take, although I was surprised that they didn't use the same vehicles. One of my concerns with the line is that designed the line to only be expandable (for capacity) by decreasing the headway between trains, allowing more trains per hour. That works - only to a point. Once you've reached the minimum safe headway - then what? Plus the platforms can't be extended without more construction...they didn't think about that. The Expo/Millennium lines can be expanded a lot easier by adding another train car.

[Waye Mason]

The capital budget is somewhat higher than that and, I think, supports the idea that the city should look at projects in the hundreds of millions. Metro transit just 19 million. I slightly understated capital, slightly overstated MT, pretty good from memory right before bedtime, I think... :)

Funding for these things is generally shared by all 3 levels of government, so the $200M LRT line becomes, say, an $80M expense for the city. These are also major projects with multi-year planning and implementation phases. It is reasonable to consider the amortized cost of the project over a time frame of decades. They don't have to be squeezed into one year's capital budget, just as people might not buy a car with earnings from only one year.

Consider that the City of Vancouver has a capital budget of under $300M. The City of Richmond's budget is considerably smaller. The Canada Line runs through those two municipalities and cost $2B. That project has been a great success and was completely worthwhile for the city.

Obviously every project needs to be sold on its merits relative to its cost. The $30M projects may be great. A $100M+ cost however is not a good reason to immediately rule out a transit project.

Capital budget in 2010/11 was $144 million, with $6 million in cost sharing.

http://halifax.ca/budget/documents/22011-12Summary_000.pdf

I'm not ruling it out, but I am saying that I think a modest ferry and rail proposal is more likely, cost effective and you can't afford both.

I did a calculation that if HRM spent the same on capital projects as Toronto does on a per capita basis, even adjusted for income/property value, it still works out to over $130 million a year. So Toronto spends as much money on capital projects for transit as Halifax spends on capital projects period on a per capita basis.

I suspect the biggest issue is lack of matching funds from the province in HRM.

Also, comparing HRM to greater Vancouver is a bit apples and oranges, don't you think? Edmonton maybe, Winnipeg and Quebec city for sure. But Vancouver at a couple million? Hard to compare, the density here is no where near that.

[MalcolmTucker]

Almost all of the in-street stations would basically be an extension of the sidewalk with some kind of shelter. They could be raised a little bit to accomodate the height difference - the tracks would be running in the lane next to the sidewalk, and could be close enough to the curb (at least at the stations) that passengers could roll on/off via these sloped ramps. Any extra land that would be needed to accomodate this either belongs to the city already or to an institution that would probably go out of their way to support this sort of thing. The only major exception is North Street, and if one of the peninsula stations had to go it would be that one. It's along the narrowest part of Robie and there's hardly any space to work with. Even closing one lane of Robie there could cause some serious traffic issues and part of the final thesis will be looking at ways to deal with this - maybe making this section of Robie 1-way but reversing.

One other station that could be tricky is Hydrostone, but I think this would be easier to deal with. Kaye Street could be rerouted (that intersection doesn't really make sense anyway) or maybe the owners of the house at the corner of Kaye and Young won't mind having a transit vehicle stopping outside the front door every 10 minutes. For some people that would be a nuisance, for others it would be about as convenient as it gets.

I'll adjust the map later tonight so that it's easy to see the sites in street view. I'm working on finding software to model the street-station-sidewalk interface, anybody know of any good programs? Something like the software being used to generate the basic stadium renderings.
So, the trains are going to wait for every car turning right at every intersection, and to enter stations? Usually since right turns have much more capacity than left turns (if there is no advanced green for the left turn) higher capacity transit goes in the middle and left turns are eliminated. Plus every car parking, oversize delivery vehicles would be blocking part of the rail ROW, the list goes on and on.

Denver has curb lanes for LRT in it its downtown, which you can see here (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Denver,+CO,+United+States&hl=en&ll=39.744943,-104.992516&spn=105.18521,270.527344&sll=53.53786,-113.499269&sspn=0.010801,0.033023&vpsrc=6&t=w&hnear=Denver,+Colorado&z=3&layer=c&panoid=w39ousN-ubbYPiqL7puR0A&cbll=39.744943,-104.992516&cbp=13,59.69645852502165,,1,2.750197416627941),

but the lane is also restricted to trains only (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Denver,+CO,+United+States&hl=en&ll=39.744323,-104.993329&spn=105.18521,270.527344&sll=53.53786,-113.499269&sspn=0.010801,0.033023&vpsrc=6&t=w&hnear=Denver,+Colorado&z=3&layer=c&panoid=ojyAf5_B1GrJkw6gDgp5LA&cbll=39.744323,-104.993329&cbp=13,-265.43905964126765,,1,-10.141352973815401), and turns are restricted by downtown Denver being almost exclusively one way streets.

[someone123]

I'm not ruling it out, but I am saying that I think a modest ferry and rail proposal is more likely, cost effective and you can't afford both.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. By can't afford both do you mean can't afford to build both simultaneously, or do you mean that the city can't afford to maintain multiple transit routes like that at once?

The commuter rail is a shorter term project. It could be built in 2013 or something and then that capital expense would be finished. If streetcars were added 5 years later to complement the commuter rail they would be a separate expense. Halifax could certainly afford something like that if it is planned in a reasonable way and that is worth investigating.

Also, comparing HRM to greater Vancouver is a bit apples and oranges, don't you think? Edmonton maybe, Winnipeg and Quebec city for sure. But Vancouver at a couple million? Hard to compare, the density here is no where near that.

We can also look at Edmonton or Quebec City if you like. Quebec City is in the process of planning a $1.5B tramway system that includes across the St. Lawrence and involves multiple municipalities. Halifax is about 60% as large and is stuggling to take on an (outdated, problematic) transit project that costs 2% as much. Halifax has a chronic lack of ambition compared to other cities (this is part of the reason why it bleeds talent and why it is so small). We can sit around coming up with reasons for why Halifax is exceptional but they are not going to fix the city's traffic problems.

[Hali87]

So, the trains are going to wait for every car turning right at every intersection, and to enter stations? Usually since right turns have much more capacity than left turns (if there is no advanced green for the left turn) higher capacity transit goes in the middle and left turns are eliminated. Plus every car parking, oversize delivery vehicles would be blocking part of the rail ROW, the list goes on and on.

Denver has curb lanes for LRT in it its downtown, which you can see here (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Denver,+CO,+United+States&hl=en&ll=39.744943,-104.992516&spn=105.18521,270.527344&sll=53.53786,-113.499269&sspn=0.010801,0.033023&vpsrc=6&t=w&hnear=Denver,+Colorado&z=3&layer=c&panoid=w39ousN-ubbYPiqL7puR0A&cbll=39.744943,-104.992516&cbp=13,59.69645852502165,,1,2.750197416627941),

but the lane is also restricted to trains only (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Denver,+CO,+United+States&hl=en&ll=39.744323,-104.993329&spn=105.18521,270.527344&sll=53.53786,-113.499269&sspn=0.010801,0.033023&vpsrc=6&t=w&hnear=Denver,+Colorado&z=3&layer=c&panoid=ojyAf5_B1GrJkw6gDgp5LA&cbll=39.744323,-104.993329&cbp=13,-265.43905964126765,,1,-10.141352973815401), and turns are restricted by downtown Denver being almost exclusively one way streets.

What I had envisioned is exactly what Denver has there. The tracks would be train-only so cars obviously wouldn't be allowed to park on them, and some alteration to delivery bays would likely be necessary in some places, though not many. Hollis is 1-way as it is and the way the system is set up, any turns that would cross the tracks would be left turns. Since many other streets downtown are 1-way several can't even be accessed turning left from Hollis. The Robie line may or may not present more challenges - it is a 2-way street but there are few delivery bays fronting onto Robie or Agricola. Just out of curiosity (and so I can respond to your posts with more or less detail as necessary) how familiar are you with the streets of Halifax? My parents are both from Edmonton, and I've been there enough times to notice that the two cities have very little in common when it comes to issues of planning and urban form. I would go as far as to say that they are basically on opposite ends of the spectrum as far as Canadian cities go.


The commuter rail is a shorter term project. It could be built in 2013 or something and then that capital expense would be finished. If streetcars were added 5 years later to complement the commuter rail they would be a separate expense. Halifax could certainly afford something like that if it is planned in a reasonable way and that is worth investigating.

For my thesis, I'm proposing multiple phases. Phase 1 would be the use of the existing CN line (or the replacement of the 2nd track if CN can't find a way to achieve temporal separation). Phase 1a, as I'll call it for now, would be the extension down Hollis Street ending at Historic Properties. Phase 2a would be the Robie-Agricola line, 2b would be the North Barrington extension.

Ideally Phase 1 and 1a would happen at the same time. This would make the service more attractive from the start and would work better as a "pilot project", because all other phases would use in-street tracks, so a line down the CN ROW would be a standalone project, not a pilot project. However if this is not possible then Bedford-VIA would still be a good starting point. Ideally HRM would still go with DLRT vehicles (like the Talents) rather than the BUDD cars, even if the initial service is scheduled commuter rail. We would save a lot of money in the long run and stations could be closer together, increasing ridership.

Phases 2a and 2b would likely come a few years later, and do not have to happen in any particular order. 2a could even be broken into two sub-phases, with the first being SMU-Quinpool. This would only require 1 additional train for 10-minute frequency and wouldn't have to deal with the narrow section of Robie right away. The advantage of getting 2a up and running is that it connects basically all of the major attractions on the peninsula outside the downtown core - Dal, SMU, all of the hospitals, NSIT, Spring Garden, the Hydrostone, Quinpool and the Commons to name a few. Phase 2b is contingent on the redevelopment of Cogswell (doesn't make sense to put tracks into a street that will be torn up in a couple years) but since it would service the shipyards it would be worthwhile pretty much from day 1.

I think a realistic timeframe for the system I'm working to be fully implemented is 10-15 years from the launch of Phase 1.

[Jstaleness]

Halifax has a chronic lack of ambition compared to other cities (this is part of the reason why it bleeds talent and why it is so small). We can sit around coming up with reasons for why Halifax is exceptional but they are not going to fix the city's traffic problems.

How can we get planners and developers from Major cities to help us? To me it would seem like a fun challenge for someone from a large city to help design a system for a small city. I know budget is a big thing and Halifax allots very little to transit over-all. Does someone like that even feel welcome here? I guess to start we need an updated council. We need people with ambition to see this city through it's full potential and not continually hold it back because some minor resistance by the public. When Halifax finally realizes that it's better off benefiting the many as opposed to satisfying the few we will see change.

[someone123]

One of the problems, I think, is that many of the proposals seem to be driven by councillors or city planners and nobody takes a step back to look at all the available options. For example, the latest reports I saw for commuter rail just assumed they'd use the refurbished Budd cars and run at 30 minute intervals only at peak times. There was no rationale given for this choice. Maybe the CN study will examine these other options but that seems unlikely.

Companies like Bombardier should be involved in this process and should be invited to share their expertise and cost estimates. There should also be a plan to bump up service levels to high frequencies so people can rely on the rail system for their routine trips during the day (can the CN line support this?). On top of this there should be substantial transit-oriented development -- the Bedford waterfront for example is a great opportunity that adds to the appeal of rail service, but is not mentioned in current presentations.

Hali87 - I agree that DLRT vehicles similar to what are used on other systems like the O-Train seem preferable to the Budd cars. The extension down Hollis would also add tremendously to the desirability of the system. It wouldn't need to be implemented in the very beginning but they should be planning for expansion. An ideal system would allow for seamless integration of trains running on the CN right of way and trains running along tracks on surface streets.

My big worry here is that the scope of planning will be too narrow and that Halifax will end up with a cheap but undesirable system that doesn't suit the needs of many potential riders (such a failure would of course by explained by saying "there you see it -- Halifax is too small for rail and we should never have tried in the first place!"). If we can have a good rail system with high frequencies that serves a substantial portion of commuters then that is worth $100M or more. Road construction costs us $100s of millions of dollars over the years, and commute times, congestion, and widening are fundamental quality of life issues in the city.

[someone123]

Here's a great picture. Obviously we cannot afford this type of gold-plated big-city infrastructure. :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Saltfjellet.jpg
Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordland_Line

[Waye Mason]

I'm all for transit, I take transit to work every day, I have been a supporter of commuter rail for 20 years, I went to the first meeting Transport 2000 presented on the matter at Halifax city hall back pre-amalgamation and have supported it ever since.

I don't feel wanting to take a long hard look at the budget and being realistic about our fiscal capacity is short sighted or negative. I want to see investments in transit, but growing the transit capital budget is going to have an impact on other projects. Or, alternately, we are going to have to raise taxes, or go into debt.

So yeah, I want to talk transit, but to have a real debate about it you have to acknowledge the cost, both operating and capital, and you have to look at what HRMs capacity is, and what the provinces capacity is.

I think, personally, we need to double the transit capital and operating budget, and I think the real cost to budget for the capital side would "only" be 6.5 mil if we could get the Feds and province onboard for a third each, like Toronto and big cities. I think the province is the harder sell, when right now we are cutting the childrens hospital.

I'd like to see the subsidy for operations increase from 10.5 to 21 million, to support the operating cost of expansion.

What it comes down to is that at a total cost to budget of $16.5 million, and that is a lot of money when the effective budget of HRM just over $756 million, including policing and fire and everything. It is a challenge.

[Hali87]

One of the problems, I think, is that many of the proposals seem to be driven by councillors or city planners and nobody takes a step back to look at all the available options. For example, the latest reports I saw for commuter rail just assumed they'd use the refurbished Budd cars and run at 30 minute intervals only at peak times. There was no rationale given for this choice. Maybe the CN study will examine these other options but that seems unlikely.

Companies like Bombardier should be involved in this process and should be invited to share their expertise and cost estimates. There should also be a plan to bump up service levels to high frequencies so people can rely on the rail system for their routine trips during the day (can the CN line support this?). On top of this there should be substantial transit-oriented development -- the Bedford waterfront for example is a great opportunity that adds to the appeal of rail service, but is not mentioned in current presentations.


I think what happened with the most recent commuter rail report is that it was just that - a report. It was not a full study, and mostly used data from previous studies that the city/municipality had commissioned, in 1975 and 1996, which both used RDCs because DLRTs weren't really available in North America back then. I think the main purpose of the report was to have something tangible to compare with the ferry and BRT options, and I might add that the commuter rail option compared quite favourably despite being a sort of worst case scenario in terms of rail service. Although the "proposed" system seems very close-minded, I took it as more of an "even the worst possible rail system would be competitive with BRT or the fast ferry" statement.

I like your point about having a high enough frequency to support day-to-day activities. Transit should not be designed for the sole purpose of getting people to and from work. What if you need to buy groceries after work? What if you're a student with no car but you want to go to a store/rec facility that is off the peninsula? If a true (heavy, infrequent) commuter rail system is implemented then the people using it will likely be car owners anyway - sure it helps with congestion but that's about it. It doesn't make day-to-day life any easier for most people who can't afford or choose not to own a car, and it would probably rely heavily on park-and-ride, which itself can get quite expensive. Incidentally, this is an emerging criticism of Calgary's CTrain - the fact that it caters so much to people who own cars anyway.

As for the Bedford Waterfront, the community master plan for Mill Cove actually includes provisions for a rail station. So does the one for Birch Cove. So both communities are basically applying transit-oriented development based around a transit system that doesn't exist yet - I've been very impressed with how forward-thinking Ekistics' recent studies have been. Mumford Terminal is also slated for replacement after the Bridge and Lacewood terminals and there are hints that it will be developed next to the train tracks.

[Hali87]

I don't feel wanting to take a long hard look at the budget and being realistic about our fiscal capacity is short sighted or negative. I want to see investments in transit, but growing the transit capital budget is going to have an impact on other projects. Or, alternately, we are going to have to raise taxes, or go into debt.

It's important to keep in mind that nothing happens in a vacuum.

Investments in transit would make some other projects cheaper or even unnecessary. If passenger service on the CN line eventually goes through - and is successful - this would mean that a significant portion of trips between Bedford and Downtown would not use the road network at all. Perhaps then other expensive projects like widening Bayers Road and the 102 would not be so urgent. The implementation of a legitimate rapid transit system would also create the kinds of conditions necessary for people to start choosing not to buy a car even if they can afford one, which again would, over the course of a few years, translate into less road construction/maintenance/plowing for the city. Unfortunately there is a certain magnitude of project that creates these conditions - adding bus routes incrementally doesn't have the same effect. I do think that the redevelopment of the Bridge and Lacewood terminals will improve the public's perception of transit as a viable option though.

[someone123]

My worry about the "worst-case scenario" is that it would be interpreted as the plan for rail transit in Halifax going forward. Another risk was that council would see the very conservative ridership numbers and kill the project, although in the end they did commission the follow-up study (I don't remember who voted for or against). Like I said, hopefully the study will be more modern and balanced. For $250,000 it had better be. :)

Something to note is that the city produced this short report in 2008 as a kind of marketing campaign against commuter rail (well, they said that maybe it could happen in 25+ years!): http://www.halifax.ca/metrotransit/documents/CommuterRail.pdf

I am a bit defensive about rail as a result. I also generally believe that, while Halifax has some advantages, it can be a backward, negative little town. It would be so much better if it woke up and gained a little purpose, creativity, and ambition.

As you say the commuter-oriented systems just don't support a car-free lifestyle. A focus on suburban commuter routes would help a bit with sprawl but wouldn't spur as much infill and transit-oriented development. It wouldn't support urban retail and it wouldn't really support the kind of lifestyle that attracts many people to urban areas.

[19200]

I guess to start we need an updated council. We need people with ambition to see this city through it's full potential and not continually hold it back because some minor resistance by the public. When Halifax finally realizes that it's better off benefiting the many as opposed to satisfying the few we will see change.

You hit the nail on the head there. I hear there is an election in Oct 2012. We can then make a change for a forward thinking progressive council.

In reponse to the RDC vs newer technology, a Budd car would accelerate to 60mph in less than 50sec back with the old Cummins 110's. Given the new cleaner plants, that's at least as good. Besides, were talking 6-8 stations along the Bedford Sub on the run in? Not much time loss there.

As for astetics, that's a matter of personal taste. I'm a fan of stainless.

The fact they could be ours in minimal time, completely refit, makes them a far better choice than designing or having built from new.

[Hali87]

There are some major problems with the BUDD cars though that are only apparent when you compare them with the newer technology. They would "get the job done" but it's kind of like the difference between a new Prius and and 80's Buick.

A study done in 1997 estimated that a DLRT could make the same trip from Sackville to the South End about 8 minutes faster than an RDC, with an equal or greater number of stops. The RDCs are high-floor, so they will either have to be non-accessible, have an extra staff member on board to deal with wheelchair lifts (if scheduling can even accomodtate that) or build high-level platforms, which are more expensive and harder to integrate into most existing infrastructure (although I think they would be necessary whether or not the vehicles are deemed to accomodate wheelchairs). They are also much, much less fuel efficient - probably more diesel per passenger than some of the older buses. All of this adds up to more $ in the long run.

[MalcolmTucker]

Unless you get regulations changed, compliant DMUs off the shelf are gonig to be high floor.

[halifaxboyns]

Commuter rail (http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/120110ca1131.pdf) is back on the agenda next week.

[Hali87]

From Halifax NewsNet (http://www.ns.dailybusinessbuzz.ca/Provincial-News/2012-01-04/article-2853876/NS:-Bedford-residents-on-board-idea-of-commuter-train/1):

[BEDFORD, NS] — Susan Tremills believes in the power of numbers, so she has decided to use not only her own voice, but to use the voices of hundreds or thousands in Bedford to let council know that residents there would not only support a commuter train to and from Halifax, but that they would use it daily.
"The petition asks specifically if you would ‘use' a commuter train," she said. "Not just if you think it's a good idea."
When Tremillls moved back to Bedford after living away from home for 15 years, she was blown away by the explosion of residential growth and by the unbelievable amount of cars on the Bedford Highway.
"It's just getting crazy," she said. "For me it's about carbon emissions — there are just too many cars on the road. But if that doesn't concern you then really it's a practical solution."
Tremills has worked closely with Bedford councillor Tim Outhit and Fall River councillor Barry Dalrymple on the Dayliner (commuter rail) project. Both are huge supporters. Dalrymple said resident support in his district has been fabulous. He already has 10 pages full of signatures.
"Rail has always been a vital part of this district," he said. "In the old days each community out here had a stop."
Dalrymple said he and Outhit have made a presentation to the transportation standing committee and that a petition for a feasibility study will be presented to council sometime early in the New Year. He said residents' signatures carry a lot of weight when making a presentation like this one. He also added it is very important that people understand this study has nothing to do with the light rapid transit study that was done a number of years ago.
"The dayliner uses existing tracks and facilities," he said.
Before coming back home, Tremills lived in Vancouver and in Japan where commuter trains are used as a practical and feasible form of transportation. She is well aware that the populations don't compare, but she also knows the population here continues to grow and that something has to be done, especially during rush-hour traffic.
"One trip in to work in the morning," she said. "Then one back home at night."
Dalrymple has been having petitions signed, but Tremills said she's had trouble finding volunteers willing to canvass so she decided to take her cause to the internet. There is an online petition at: http://www.petitiononlinecanada.com/petition/bring-back-the-dayliner-to-hrm-2012/663

[cormiermax]

That report says there planning on using refurbished bud cars, I wont support this if thats the case, those things are so dated its insane. Its not like we're some 3rd world hell hole, we can afford proper trains.

[Waye Mason]

That report says there planning on using refurbished bud cars, I wont support this if thats the case, those things are so dated its insane. Its not like we're some 3rd world hell hole, we can afford proper trains.

They are totally rebuilt, rebuilt trucks, brand new interior, gutted to the structure, new electronics, new everything but the exterior frame and chassis.

http://www.industrialrail.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=2

[someone123]

Even with the old cars the service would be far better than what exists now, and the older cars would not have to be permanent. It's not like, say, building a flawed stadium, and it doesn't seem like the old cars are bad enough to make the system nonviable.

I personally suspect that the ridership projections are extremely conservative even for the present population and they do not take the high growth of this corridor into account (MetroLink was similar and exceeded expectations). If a bare-bones service is implemented as a proof of concept and is successful then it will be far easier to ask for money for improvements.

If the city has 20,000 people per day going along the existing Bedford Highway corridor then it will be time to push for things like higher-end cars and improved ROWs going right downtown.

Over the long term Halifax needs to work toward an integrated system where you can get on a bus in Hammonds Plains that takes you down to the train station, which then goes right downtown (and to the Mumford terminal) and connects to ferries and streetcars. That is the level of system that a large number of people can rely on and would choose to use. Buses are not going to cut it for Bedford because the road capacity is not there.

[halifaxboyns]

Even with the old cars the service would be far better than what exists now, and the older cars would not have to be permanent. It's not like, say, building a flawed stadium, and it doesn't seem like the old cars are bad enough to make the system nonviable.

I personally suspect that the ridership projections are extremely conservative even for the present population and they do not take the high growth of this corridor into account (MetroLink was similar and exceeded expectations). If a bare-bones service is implemented as a proof of concept and is successful then it will be far easier to ask for money for improvements.

If the city has 20,000 people per day going along the existing Bedford Highway corridor then it will be time to push for things like higher-end cars and improved ROWs going right downtown.

Over the long term Halifax needs to work toward an integrated system where you can get on a bus in Hammonds Plains that takes you down to the train station, which then goes right downtown (and to the Mumford terminal) and connects to ferries and streetcars. That is the level of system that a large number of people can rely on and would choose to use. Buses are not going to cut it for Bedford because the road capacity is not there.

Totally agree - and thanks to Waye for the link for the updated BUDD cars. I'd rather start out with that and show that the system works (which I think a number of us agree it would) and then move from there. The only catch I would suggest is that as part of implementing the service an additional 20 buses be ordered as a backup to the train and for connecting services from Mumford and Downtown. This way people can connect to the hospitals and universities at multiple points. I wonder if you could also get some of the older LRC cars too? They would be quite good for a service like this...or the double decker ones like GO uses.

[19200]

The Budd RDC was a very efficient and well built design. This is the reason it's still around.

Setup the service, prove that it works, then down the road we can upgrade to shiney new items if that's what people desire.

Personally I'm a huge fan of classic well proven designs.

Minniapolis has a population very simlar to HRM's. You should see their commuter rail system. Makes one very envious when you see what municipalities can do when they put their mind to it.

[MonctonRad]

:previous:

Absolutely agree.

First get the commuter rail service up and running. Prove that there is a demand there and then build from that.

The BUDD cars will do just fine in the short term. It should be noted that Industrial Rail Services is based in Moncton so this is an example of a project that benefits the whole region.

someone is quite correct. Halifax needs an integrated transit solution and this will require commuter rail. I would go so far as to state that commuter rail will be the linchpin that the regional transit system will be built on.

Let's git'r done!

[Wishblade]

The Budd RDC was a very efficient and well built design. This is the reason it's still around.

Setup the service, prove that it works, then down the road we can upgrade to shiney new items if that's what people desire.

Personally I'm a huge fan of classic well proven designs.

Minniapolis has a population very simlar to HRM's. You should see their commuter rail system. Makes one very envious when you see what municipalities can do when they put their mind to it.

Sorry to throw a wrench into your argument, especially since I agree that HRM requires commuter rail, but you can't possibly compare Minneapolis to HRM. They have a metro area of 3-4 million to draw from I believe.

[Jstaleness]

:previous: You are right. Their Metropolitan area has about 3.3 Million according to Wikipedia. The city itself does have a very similar population though.

[halifaxboyns]

This is one thing where someone123 and I have been thinking along the same lines: a multi-modal transit system. I've always believed that regional rail would have value as part of that equation, just as much as fast ferries or an lrt would be important as well. Personally, my multi-modal equation might be a bit bigger than others (including streetcars, lrt, regional rail, bus, BRT and fast ferry) - but we all have to get around.

I agree, if you want to see if the system is going to work the only way to do it is to set it up and get it going. There will be some additional cost for extra buses though (in the event of a breakdown and the need for additional connections at Mumford and the Train Station) but that's minor.

That train station is a lovely building and really deserve to be a busy place and if we setup the network well, then as the regional expands it will be reasonably smooth to expand. I don't think this system would grow to being something as big as 'go transit' in my lifetime, but it's good to get the backbone setup and watch it grow...

[Waye Mason]

Growing up in Dartmouth meant being excited to take the ferry and sad to take the bus. The ferry was great because it came on time, and left on time, and you got to wait in a warm building if you had to wait.

Rail is the same. It has that vibe and convenience that anything short of full BRT can't match. And then all the buses get re-routed around rail. Buses like the 80 get axed, and sure there are local buses but the role of the buses would be for a very large part to get people to the on time, high capacity train.

[someone123]

Yeah, there are a lot of factors that are often not properly assessed when discussing buses vs. other modes of transportation.

Trains are typically much more reliable and can be automated. They're also fixed infrastructure with a sense of permanence. Ferries with terminals are the same way. Bus stops do not feel like that. Many people who would not take the bus or move to a neighbourhood for a bus stop would ride a train or choose a housing location based on a train station. People in Toronto or Vancouver will pay lots of extra money in rent to live by a subway or SkyTrain stop.

Travel times are also very, very important. A bus like the 80 is never going to be faster than a car because of traffic issue, bus stops, and other handicaps. Trains can be much faster than traffic. If people were looking at a 50 minute car trip vs. 30 minute train ride along the Bedford Highway corridor they would get on a train in droves. You could the fanciest buses ever stuck in traffic and nobody would take them.

Often you see flawed transit comparisons that assume a linear relationship between value and time when in reality you will have *tons* of people on the fast train while nobody will bother with the slow and less comfortable bus.

[19200]

I was off in my population claim. While the 377k for the city proper is comparable to HRM, things change when you look into surrounding population area's. My apologies.

Halifax is still uniquely positioned to take advantage of rail geographically. With a large percentage of the peninsula surrounded by water, having high density travel (rail) into it's core is key.

A number of people have hit the nail on the head with travel time. Ferry and Rail have a dedicated right of way, bus modes suffer the same way the rest do in traffic. (I submit the obvious caviat that there are other users on CN's right of way and the harbour)

[Empire]

So many people advocate buses as the solution to removing cars from the streets. With the growth rate in Halifax buses are minimally reducing an increase in cars and not reducing the existing flow. Gridlock is not far off as it now takes 20min from downtown to Armdale.

With a steady increase in buses and cars the obvious next step is rail. We have rail through the suburbs terminating downtown at the via station and this doesn't jump out as a gift? There was a commuter rail line in 1890 called the Intercolonial Railway. The railway extended over a wooden bridge at the Narrows and connected to the Richmond Terminal. This terminal was later replaced by the North Street Intercolonial Railway Station in 1890. The service from this station to downtown was withdrawn by the owner in a fight with the city. The station became overcrowded with cabs and instead of investing in more trolley service to downtown the city approved the railcut to be built as a way into the city. We are 122 years behind the times!

The 2 peninsula stops could be Mumford and Via station. Buses from Mumford could take the Mackay to Burnside and constant loop routes would serve the Via Station. Does anyone know why double decker busses are not used in HRM?

The route from Windsor Junction that will be discussed tonight is interesting. You could have a major stop at exit #7 where the track crosses Hwy 102. This would be 4-5km from the airport and an airport shuttle could do that loop. This would serve people coming from downtown - Bedford to the airport and back.

Exit #7 near the airport
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=en&ll=44.909447,-63.527584&spn=0.04018,0.07699&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=37.614223,78.837891&vpsrc=6&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&z=14&iwloc=A

[halifaxboyns]

They're also fixed infrastructure with a sense of permanence. Ferries with terminals are the same way. Bus stops do not feel like that. Many people who would not take the bus or move to a neighbourhood for a bus stop would ride a train or choose a housing location based on a train station. People in Toronto or Vancouver will pay lots of extra money in rent to live by a subway or SkyTrain stop.

Travel times are also very, very important. A bus like the 80 is never going to be faster than a car because of traffic issue, bus stops, and other handicaps. Trains can be much faster than traffic.

This fixed infrastructure comment was my favorite. I've heard that said time and time again. I've mentioned this E squared program on transportation (mainly on Portland), but the comment about being fixed infrastruture is a big point in that program when Portland built it's streetcar. This point proved to make the Streetcar (and development around it) so successful that over $3 billion in private investment was made and now the streetcar is being expanded. I would bet that a regional rail, LRT or streetcar would be the same way.

This (http://youtu.be/y8h8NLAAEq4) is a clip from the E squared program, that talks just about the point of 'permanent infrastructure' and how successful that committment has been for Portland.

[someone123]

It is a bit sad when you look back at something like the rail cut. That project was built around 1900 and would be equivalent to a billion-dollar project today due to the smaller size of the city and the limited technology of the era. Today we are still benefiting from that project, but I am not sure we could even repeat it. If somebody proposed a rail cut through rock with a dozen bridges it would be called overly elaborate, expensive, and disruptive.

What infrastructure will we be adding for future generations? It seems like the primary legacy of the last few decades will be government debt. The cheap cookie cutter suburban buildings and infrastructure are certainly not going to last.

With the Canada Line in Vancouver, the planners repeatedly stated they were taking a long-term view because they were considering building 50 year+ infrastructure. The capital costs were to be amortized over a long period and one goal was for the infrastructure to be relevant and useful 50 years into the future.

I don't see this type of thinking with Halifax's transportation planning. The focus is always on cutting costs in the short term, so projects like underground tunnels are not properly evaluated. Unfortunately, this translates into lost opportunity and money over the longer term as we pay over and over for the same cheap fixes or pay extra for late fixes.

[halifaxboyns]

Totally agree...100%.
I haven't seen much in terms of the Regional Centre Plan in terms of transportation comments or thinking. The biggest surprise for me was the regional plan, which didn't have much in terms of transportation planning.

Considering the effort Calgary put into the MDP (Municipal Development Plan), to not have done the CTP (Calgary Transportation Plan) would've made no sense. The two should be done together, this way once you have the plans approved - you know where you are going to need to invest money for road, transit, infrastructure improvements. This way investment is coordinated and done in a logical way, versus all over the place.

[Hali87]

From the Herald:

Commuter rail study back on track

Halifax city hall is looking at using commuter rail to ease the burden on congested traffic corridors.

Tonight, regional council’s transportation committee will recommend the city pay $250,000 for an independent study on the feasibility of establishing a commuter system using CN’s existing track and perhaps even refurbished dayliner cars.

"There’s a whole lot of reasons why I like (the idea)," said Coun. Tim Outhit (Bedford).

"There’s a lot of development going on in Bedford and the traffic in Bedford is getting worse and worse, and the other thing is they are talking about all these hundreds of millions to widen roads when I think there are other ways, in addition to widening roads, where we could move people downtown."

The study would likely cost around $200,000 and another $50,000 would go to CN to provide data for the study, Outhit said.

A number of residents in the Bedford and Fall River areas are also jumping on board the commuter rail idea and have two petitions on the go — one online and a traditional paper petition.

Coun. Barry Dalrymple (Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank) is helping and has collected about 150 signatures.

"Commuter rail is one of the issues I campaigned on," he said during a telephone interview Monday.

At one time, Halifax looked at the possibility of introducing a light rail system for commuters, but that would have required all-new infrastructure, Dalrymple said. The beauty of the present proposal, he said, is to use CN’s existing rails and possibly dayliner cars that CN still owns.

Neither councillor is suggesting the municipality operate such a rail transit system. Those details would be worked out down the line.

A municipal staff report last year suggested that capital startup costs for such a rail system would be about $30.9 million, not including any land purchases that might be required.

Annual operating costs would be about $6.6 million, the report stated.

For Outhit, the possibility of rail service also appeals to him on a personal level.

"One of my grandfathers was an engineer and so we rode trains a lot."

But he said he realizes a business case would have to be built comparing rail to an expansion of the current road and bus system, which means "buying buses, and building bus lanes, and widening roads and building transit terminals."

"We spent hundreds of millions of dollars on public transit and ridership is down. So we must be doing something wrong, or there’s something we could be doing better."

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/50308-commuter-rail-study-back-track (source)

What is this LRT study that they keep mentioning? I don't remember ever hearing about any rail proposals that didn't use existing tracks.

[someone123]

Maybe there was an LRT study but I do not remember anything significant along the lines of the current CN study.

Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation out there. There were a bunch of articles in November about ridership going down but they did not include statistics (which leads me to believe that the decrease was minor or nonexistent -- journalists do not hide dramatic numbers that fit their argument!). For several years ridership was up very substantially. It is certainly not true that the city has invested hundreds of millions into the system to no effect.

The rail stuff is all over the place with some people calling the Bedford route LRT and some calling it commuter rail while all sorts of inappropriate comparisons are made with systems in other cities.

I don't know why they keep talking about how the city of course would not be operating this route. Presumably it would be operated by Metro Transit because it is a transit service. Why are they bringing up this needless distraction? I hope this isn't some kind of excuse for creating some privately-run or CN-run service.

It is sad that we can't even talk about this in a coherent way. There's no real spokesperson for this issue who is a transit expert. Somebody needs to clearly communicate what type of service this would be and why it is the best option for the city. Hopefully the study will help by anchoring the discussion.

[Northend Nerd]

Council approved the 250k study last night.

http://www.news957.com/news/local/article/318410--council-approves-funding-for-commuter-rail-study

[resetcbu1]

Council approved the 250k study last night.

http://www.news957.com/news/local/article/318410--council-approves-funding-for-commuter-rail-study

Great news, seems as though the city has been approving feasibility studies lately, also seems as though most of the items that are being improved for the study is are blatantly feasible, not to say that the study does not still need to be done ,it just seems as though they'd wait until the time we can already use it , then decide if it's feasible Lol...

Nonetheless glad to see this moving forward. I would be interested to see a study on the feasibility of citywide rail transit, using various methods throughout this city such as; Streetcars,LRT,dayliners and even a thatgo Train to Truro and surrounding areas, Annapolis valley Windsor area...

[someone123]

As far as I know there is no current guarantee that commuter rail is feasible since CN owns the rail lines themselves and there are many requirements in terms of signaling and so forth.

A lawyer friend of mine did mention that he thought there was some sort of federal decision lately that basically forces monopolies like CN to deal with cities wanting to implement services like commuter rail if they can be fit into the existing schedules. I don't know if this is true or what the details are, but it would only be fair since CN did not even develop these networks in the first place. The rail infrastructure is something the public paid for at great expense and much of it has been squandered. It is a sad picture overall.

All that aside, I think there was also the cost issue in the past. I do not think that is as important. Regional council seems to sometimes get randomly "spooked" and might avoid a $30M project, then later proceed to go with the equivalent of an "impulse buy" for something else. Fundamentally I think the commuter rail project at $30M would have a very good return on investment, unless it were somehow crippled (forced to run at 20 km/h or something strange like that). It would be more expensive than buses but rail is a fundamentally different, higher-value service.

[resetcbu1]

As far as I know there is no current guarantee that commuter rail is feasible since CN owns the rail lines themselves and there are many requirements in terms of signaling and so forth.

A lawyer friend of mine did mention that he thought there was some sort of federal decision lately that basically forces monopolies like CN to deal with cities wanting to implement services like commuter rail if they can be fit into the existing schedules. I don't know if this is true or what the details are, but it would only be fair since CN did not even develop these networks in the first place. The rail infrastructure is something the public paid for at great expense and much of it has been squandered. It is a sad picture overall.

All that aside, I think there was also the cost issue in the past. I do not think that is as important. Regional council seems to sometimes get randomly "spooked" and might avoid a $30M project, then later proceed to go with the equivalent of an "impulse buy" for something else. Fundamentally I think the commuter rail project at $30M would have a very good return on investment, unless it were somehow crippled (forced to run at 20 km/h or something strange like that). It would be more expensive than buses but rail is a fundamentally different, higher-value service.

I guess it's not guaranteed feasible when we have to share lines of CN, but I believe that it would be feasible nonetheless to operate some form of rail throughout the city .Although I'm not an expert, I would imagine a city the size of Halifax building something along that line would simply be good planning for the future, let's hope this takes shape

[MalcolmTucker]

The report to council likely has too many frequencies too close together for CN, but I can't see a modified operation being ruled out all together.

[macgregor]

The route from Windsor Junction that will be discussed tonight is interesting. You could have a major stop at exit #7 where the track crosses Hwy 102. This would be 4-5km from the airport and an airport shuttle could do that loop. This would serve people coming from downtown - Bedford to the airport and back.

Exit #7 near the airport
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=en&ll=44.909447,-63.527584&spn=0.04018,0.07699&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=37.614223,78.837891&vpsrc=6&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&z=14&iwloc=A

Exit 7 does look like a good spot for this. In particular, "Station Road" in Enfield (where a station probably existed before) would work well. However, this spot and everything north of the river is in Hants County, which might cause a bunch of problems.

[halifaxboyns]

The question would be whether or not CN had any trains going through the line during any of the periods that these trains would be operating?

If not, I can't see how they would be upset over it. From what I understand, their double stacked service from Ceries leaves quite late at night (I've heard it from my mom's condo around 11:30pm). I'm not sure what time the train from Halterm leaves, but it's late too. I remember being at my cousin's place on Mailing Avenue by the rail cut until 2:30am and hearing the train go by around 2am.

So if the rail line isn't used that much during these times - I would think it would not matter.

[Nouvellecosse]

There also a couple of VIA passenger trips during the day as well.

[Dmajackson]

I used to live next to the tracks in Bedford and if I remember correctly there was a 8:30pm "the closing" train heading outbound, one around midnight and once around 3am. The fourth train was probably in the early morning hours when I was asleep.

The "Ocean" rolled by in the afternoons. Looking at the VIA schedule it leaves Hollis Street at 12:15pm and arrives at 5:10pm.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

This is a perfect example, IMO, of a transit debate spinning it's wheels because we are looking at the issue from the perspective of transportation technologies and not what we want those technologies to do for us.

Some big questions that are going unasked include, regardless of technology:
1) How much service do we want, in terms of frequency and when the service operates?
2) How are people going to get to the service from their homes? And to their destination at the end of the transit line?
3) Are we trying to serve peak perod riders primarily, or are we interested in all-day service?
4) How much do we want it to cost per passenger, in terms of both fares and operating subsidies?

It sure doesn't look like Council asked these questions before hiring a consultant for $250K. It's not a consultants job to answer all these questions - some are value judgements and are inherently political.

On commuter rail in particular: the reason I really dislike this proposal is that it is a VERY EXPENSIVE service to operate. You need more than one person per train crew, which makes labour costs expensive, especially if we are looking at running small trains like dayliners. The service also runs in only one direction, which can essentially double the cost if the trains need to get back to their origin. Even in big cities, commuter rail service usually runs mostly in peak time with long headways, partly because it's so expensive to run the trains and hard to justify the expense outside of peak. With low frequency service and a short time of operation it's a poor way to move people not making the 9-5 commute. I think the high speed ferry would have similar issues, since judging by the current ferries the crew is several people. I personally think Bedford deserves MORE service than commuter rail or the fast ferry would likely provide, in terms of how often the service would run, when it runs, and how that service connects to the broader network.

HRM needs to be willing to invest in transit, heavily, but it's really hard to say if commuter rail, or any rail, is the answer before we start asking WHAT WE NEED TRANSIT TO DO. Not what different technologies do, that's the second part of the question. There are pros and cons of any approach to serving Bedford, but we need to know what we're trying to achieve before we can have a real discussion about those tradeoffs. It's a huge failure of Council that they've been caught up with the details and in the end decided to do essentially nothing for what is probably the most underserved area in HRM.

Outhit's comments about "running on commuter rail" tell the story. He didn't run on fast, frequent, reliable service to dowtown, he ran on a technology. Yeah it sells better but it can make for messy decision making. His comments about transit ridership are at best ignorant, and at worse misleading and self serving. I recall seeing double digit ridership gains over several of the last years, as well as modest but important gains in modal split for transit. Maybe there's been a dip but it would have to be huge to erase the gains. Add in the fact that a lot of the capial insetments have been in replacement buses and it makes his comments worse. Metro Transit was long neglected and it will continue to be expensive to rebuild and expand the agency.

[halifaxboyns]

There also a couple of VIA passenger trips during the day as well.

During winter, the ocean runs 6 days a week. One inbound around 5pm and the outbound is usually around 12:45pm. It's during the summer it runs daily, same times though.

[Hali87]

1) How much service do we want, in terms of frequency and when the service operates?
What council has looked at in the past, is running "scheduled" trains (peak-service only, with maybe 1 train per hour off-peak)

2) How are people going to get to the service from their homes? And to their destination at the end of the transit line?
What I think we should be aiming for is a service where people can walk or take the bus to the train station. What council seems to be going for is a system that caters to car-owners. They seem to be getting more and more excited about extending the system to Windsor Junction, Fall River, Enfield. Can you picture anyone in Windsor Junction or Enfield walking to the station? There isn't even the option of taking the bus to the station that far out. The studies so far have also largely ignored potential locations like Larry Uteck Blvd, where a high number of walk-ups is almost a guarantee. Based on this, I think it is fair to assume that the system will cater to the park-and-ride market, not to people who don't have cars.


3) Are we trying to serve peak perod riders primarily, or are we interested in all-day service?

I think all-day service would definitely be used, but previous studies have focused almost exclusively on peak-period.

4) How much do we want it to cost per passenger, in terms of both fares and operating subsidies?

I think it should cost the same as conventional bus or MetroLink, and should allow for easy transfers with the bus system. The councilors have stated that they don't want HRM "in the railroad business" so they are hoping that it will be outsourced to CN or VIA. These companies would never agree to operate something like this unless it was profitable, and they wouldn't see savings in the form of reduced road construction/maintenance/congestion the way the city would.

[someone123]

What council seems to be going for is a system that caters to car-owners. They seem to be getting more and more excited about extending the system to Windsor Junction, Fall River, Enfield. Can you picture anyone in Windsor Junction or Enfield walking to the station?

Unfortunately transit-oriented development is largely being ignored (local councillors would probably oppose up-zoning anyway) even though it's a major part of transit planning. People keep talking about how some areas are cheaper to service and they complain about transit but they do not put two and two together. If they could get, say, 10,000-20,000 people to live along transit lines it would be huge.

I've got nothing against park and ride per se, but it does not scale very well and I doubt it makes sense to build a major service around that. The prominence of park and ride in this debate just reflects the fact that councillors are planning out a system for themselves. The average transit user or potential transit user does not have the lifestyle of an HRM councillor.

I agree with Halifax Hillbilly. As I said a few pages back, I think there should be some more fundamental regional transportation planning, and it should be not be done by the councillors themselves.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

I think it should cost the same as conventional bus or MetroLink, and should allow for easy transfers with the bus system. The councilors have stated that they don't want HRM "in the railroad business" so they are hoping that it will be outsourced to CN or VIA. These companies would never agree to operate something like this unless it was profitable, and they wouldn't see savings in the form of reduced road construction/maintenance/congestion the way the city would.

If by cost you mean a similar fare that is a reasonable goal, adjusted for distance if the services reach farther afield. Unfortunately the cost to run the services being talked about at council (rail) are fundamentally higher than buses due to the size of the crew needed to operate the trains. This would mean to have a comparable fare to Metro Link HRM would have to subsidize each rail commuter heavily.

The other issue with rail is it will most likely run at low frequencies, due to the high cost of running trains, among other things. Low frequencies make it difficult to coordinate transfers with the rest of the network and can really increase travel time if transfers are required. Low frequencies also make the service a lot less desireable for some of the potential customers that are sometimes mentioned (students at the Mount or Dal for instance), who don't have a 9-5 commute and look for a more frequent service outside of peak hours.

A couple of blog articles that may be helpful, from transit network planner Jarrett Walker's site Human Transit:

Travel Time: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/illusions-of-travel-time-in-transit-promotion.html

Transferring: http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html (http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html)

Frequency: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/08/basics-the-case-for-frequency-mapping.html

[someone123]

I've seen that blog before. He's got a post on Halifax: http://www.humantransit.org/2011/07/network-design-for-high-ridership-a-dense-city-example.html

There are a bunch of problems with low frequency service. For example, if there are few trips you have to be extra careful to arrive on time and you always have to worry about the schedule. A low frequency system is pretty useless for little shopping trips and the like -- it might help with rush hour traffic but people will still be dependent on their cars. The great thing about something like the subway in Toronto or SkyTrain here in Vancouver is that most of the time you show up and a train is there.

An automated system would be one way to provide a cost-effective (in terms of operating cost) high-frequency service. I bet an elevated train on the peninsula would be awesome, and it could connect up with buses at a couple of points.

[resetcbu1]

halifaxboyns,

I know you work for C of C ...... do you have any Idea how many people here ride the C-train?

[beyeas]

During winter, the ocean runs 6 days a week. One inbound around 5pm and the outbound is usually around 12:45pm. It's during the summer it runs daily, same times though.

Just for kicks, my wife and I are actually taking the Ocean to Quebec City in a couple of weeks for the winter carnival. Not exactly the most time efficient way to travel, but still a very fun way if you just make the train trip itself a part of vacation. I can't imagine doing it without a sleeper cabin though! I love travelling by rail outside of North America, so it was nice to find an excuse to take a train rather than plane trip here (with the excuse being pregnancy).

[Halifax Hillbilly]

halifaxboyns,

I know you work for C of C ...... do you have any Idea how many people here ride the C-train?

According to wikipedia around a quarter million trips a day. Calgary's downtown is a very large, dense office market, and parking is famously expensive.Not sure what the entire Calgary transit system carries per day. By comparison Metro Transit is somewhere around 80,000 to 90,000 for all modes (bus, ferry, Metrolink).

[Halifax Hillbilly]

I've seen that blog before. He's got a post on Halifax: http://www.humantransit.org/2011/07/network-design-for-high-ridership-a-dense-city-example.html

There are a bunch of problems with low frequency service. For example, if there are few trips you have to be extra careful to arrive on time and you always have to worry about the schedule. A low frequency system is pretty useless for little shopping trips and the like -- it might help with rush hour traffic but people will still be dependent on their cars. The great thing about something like the subway in Toronto or SkyTrain here in Vancouver is that most of the time you show up and a train is there.


Yeah big city transit can be brilliant. Nothing like running 4 or 5 minute headways, and sometimes shorter headways, most of the day.

I agree completely about the low frequency problem, which is obvious from my last couple of posts. That said there is a place for low frequency commuter service, but it can't be the main product for Bedford. It's simply to big a market and it's reasonably dense. Now in Elmsdale, Enfield, Fall River, which are all smaller and much less dense, I think the only way to go is a commter system of some sort based on park and ride.

[halifaxboyns]

A wonderful photo thread of Portland's transportation systems.
Some potential inspiration for HRM?
Thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=195957)

[Hali87]

I remember some time ago, someone explained the "passing lanes" to be used in Toronto's new LRT system (ie. trains travel in both directions on the same rails, which split into 2 tracks at certain intervals to allow trains to pass each other). I have been unable to find any more information on this (except that this is how the o-train works as well).. can anyone either explain in further detail or post a link to more info?

[MalcolmTucker]

I remember some time ago, someone explained the "passing lanes" to be used in Toronto's new LRT system (ie. trains travel in both directions on the same rails, which split into 2 tracks at certain intervals to allow trains to pass each other). I have been unable to find any more information on this (except that this is how the o-train works as well).. can anyone either explain in further detail or post a link to more info?
Toronto never planned that. It is pretty easy to do, you just more than halve any headway you would normally have.

If you want to operate without switches a system like that, you use gauntlet tracks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_track

[Hali87]

This is a message I posted in the Toronto section of SSC regarding the Eglinton corridor, but I also wonder if something similar would be an option here. There has been talk recently about a third bridge, and I think it would be a much better option to use the funds for something like this.

After scanning the thread, it seems like the arguments come down to a few simple points on each side:

Pro-subway
Long term investment (will handle future ridership growth)
Faster service (many proponents claim LRT will be too slow)
More reliable (some fear LRT will succumb to delays due to traffic interaction)

Pro-LRT
Lower initial investment
Some say the corridor doesn't warrant HRT capacity
Better local service (many proponents claim subway stops are too far apart)

So what we need is a solution that is cheaper than normal subway but equally fast and reliable, and significantly increases capacity (but not necessarily to the level of normal subway) that provides strong local service but also enough speed to service across town travelers, and is expandable to handle future growth.

Of all the suggestions made so far, I like the one consisting of local and express LRT the most. But has anyone considered this suggestion? How about a single tracked subway?

The line would have a single tunnel that would accommodate a single HRT track, but would have double tracks in station. Since stations are a major component of subway cost, the stations would be fairly far apart (think Northern Yonge St.) to provide fast express service, and local service would be provided by continuing surface bus service. Here's a segment of the subway:

Legend
_______________ Single track
{1=========} Double track (in station 1)
-A<-<-<-<-<-< 6 Car Train 'A' traveling right to left
{1->->->->->->B-} 6 car Train 'B' in station 3 beside empty track


In the following example, there is a cross section of three stations 1, 2, & 3 (it would be best to keep an uneven number of stations) in which train A is about to meet and pass train B

{1->->->->->->A}_____________{2=========}____________{3-B<-<-<-<-<-<}

The trains are electronically controlled and their speed is adjusted to arrive at station 2 at the same time, leaving stations 1 and 3 empty.

----------------------------------------------- -B<-<-<-<-<-<-
{1==========}______________{2->->->->->->A}______________{3========}

At the same time as trains A and B leave station 2 to reach stations 1 and 3 respectively, imaginary trains leave stations 0 and 4 (not shown) to arrive at 1 and 3 to repeat the process.

The benefit to this is that although the initial cost would be greatly reduced, the setup could be expanded in the future to address growth by twinning the tunnel and adding/renovating stations to give both express and local service. The capacity would not be quite as high as twin tracked HRT, but would still be excellent. If there was 2km between each station, the trains have an average traveling speed of 80km/h (max 110km/h) and stop at each station for about 30 sec, then there would be a train arriving at each station from each direction in as little as every 4 min. This may not be the super high 2-3 min frequency of the busiest subway lines during peak periods, but close enough. And I'm sure that the computer technology available currently would allow the automation to work quite well.

So what does everyone think of this alternative? Personally I've often wondered if things like this would be a good alternative for lighter-capacity routes or as an entry level alternative for cities buildings their first system.

A single tracked rail transit tunnel from the Alderny area across to Scotia terminal then on to the train station where it would surface and become a commuter route along the railcut connecting to feeder bus and park/ride facilities up as far as Rockingham or even Bedford. I'd also like to see it extended up toward the Circumferential to better allow park and ride access. This has the ability to both substantially reduce congestion on the bridges and speed commute times.

This is what I'd meant earlier; I guess it was just a forumer's idea and not a TTC proposal. This is how the O-train is currently set up though, does anyone know of any other single-tracked systems like this?

[Hali87]

I will be presenting a poster at the Elizabeth May Symposium tomorrow at Dalhousie, based on my honours thesis which examines the potential for LRT in the Halifax area. I'm not sure what other departments/programs are presenting, but I know that some students in the Master of Urban Planning program have been working on similar projects, and from what I have seen they are very well thought out and visually impressive. There is definitely a lot of interest in this topic and it seems to be gaining some momentum. If anyone is interested in seeing my poster I can email it, or post it on here once I get the chance to convert it to an image file.

If anyone is interested in attending the symposium, it's tomorrow (Fri. March 9) from 2pm until 7pm in the Dalhousie Student Union Building. I believe it's free.

[Nouvellecosse]

Which room in the SUB? There's like 5 floors and a basement isn't there?

[resetcbu1]

Show, I read an article in the newspaper today stating that a private company will be starting a private tram train system in halifax on monday , operating a long whatt usually would be transit route 7 ,80 and 20 charging a 4 dollar fare and I believe that they have room to expand . I will try to post this article later on tonight as I am posting this from my cellphone, not sure how reliable resources it came from a newspaper called canadian national newspaper?

[someone123]

I'd be interested in seeing the poster.

There's a great opportunity right now to push for LRT because of the combination of the good economy and the turnover that will happen in city hall later this year.

Halifax is also getting to the size range (~500,000) where it's hard to offhandedly dismiss LRT as something for larger cities. Calgary was right around Halifax's present size (400,000 in 1971) when real planning for LRT began, and due to rising gas prices and improved transit technology it is probably easier to build a system now than it was back then. Another factor that works in Halifax's favour is the tough geography, limited road infrastructure, and lack of appetite for road widening.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I'd be interested in seeing the poster.

There's a great opportunity right now to push for LRT because of the combination of the good economy and the turnover that will happen in city hall later this year.

Halifax is also getting to the size range (~500,000) where it's hard to offhandedly dismiss LRT as something for larger cities. Calgary was right around Halifax's present size (400,000 in 1971) when real planning for LRT began, and due to rising gas prices and improved transit technology it is probably easier to build a system now than it was back then. Another factor that works in Halifax's favour is the tough geography, limited road infrastructure, and lack of appetite for road widening.

Watch HRM drop millions on "studies", get a quote for a trillion dollars from the moe's, debate it endlessly with other delays in council, reject it based upon cost, perform another study...

200 years later, we have LRT and a stadium.

[cormiermax]

Watch HRM drop millions on "studies", get a quote for a trillion dollars from the moe's, debate it endlessly with other delays in council, reject it based upon cost, perform another study...

200 years later, we have LRT and a stadium.

:haha: Sad, hilarious and true.

[Hali87]

Which room in the SUB? There's like 5 floors and a basement isn't there?

Sorry, I believe it's in the McCain Room. I forget what floor it's on (it's up) but there's an information desk in the main lobby of the building and I would guess probably some ads up for it. The website is here: http://emaychair.dal.ca/index.php/annual-symposium/2012.

Also going on over the next 2 days is the planning department's symposium, SHIFT 2012. Details here: http://planningconference.dal.ca/Home.html.

[Hali87]

Show, I read an article in the newspaper today stating that a private company will be starting a private tram train system in halifax on monday , operating a long whatt usually would be transit route 7 ,80 and 20 charging a 4 dollar fare and I believe that they have room to expand . I will try to post this article later on tonight as I am posting this from my cellphone, not sure how reliable resources it came from a newspaper called canadian national newspaper?

This sounds fishy. How can they start a tram train system along route 20 (Herring Cove Road)..? There are no rail lines anywhere in the area and even if they meant trolleybuses, they would have to install several kilometres of wiring and other electrical infrastructure in 3 days. And even if they meant that they were going to install rail lines along Herring Cove Road I think it's too hilly for this to work easily. Doesn't seem likely.

[Hali87]

I'd be interested in seeing the poster.

There's a great opportunity right now to push for LRT because of the combination of the good economy and the turnover that will happen in city hall later this year.

Halifax is also getting to the size range (~500,000) where it's hard to offhandedly dismiss LRT as something for larger cities. Calgary was right around Halifax's present size (400,000 in 1971) when real planning for LRT began, and due to rising gas prices and improved transit technology it is probably easier to build a system now than it was back then. Another factor that works in Halifax's favour is the tough geography, limited road infrastructure, and lack of appetite for road widening.

I still haven't had a chance to convert my poster to an image file (it's in powerpoint form right now, and I don't have powerpoint on my mac). I should have a chance tomorrow.

Calgary was also probably much less densely populated back then than Halifax is now, same with Edmonton. Clayton Park West has a higher population density than almost any census tract in Edmonton as of 2011, and CPW is by no means the most densely populated neighbourhood in Halifax. Also, both systems have stations that are much more expensive than the ones here would need to be (Edmonton because of its underground stations, Calgary because of its massive park-and-ride-oriented stations that often include huge pedestrian overpasses over 6-lane boulevards). It's interesting in Ottawa how the bus stations along the Transitway tend to be much more extravagant than the O-train stations. Rail can be done on a budget and still be a much more user-friendly system than what we currently have (or had until Feb. 2).

[halifaxboyns]

I'm heading to Edmonton this weekend if you want any photos of the LRT system, let me know.

I also live in Calgary - the LRT stations in the roads (Bridgeland, Zoo, Barlow/Max Bell, Franklin and pretty much the entire NE and NW lines) aren't so bad...but that's also because of the huge populations living outside the city.

There has been a lot of recognition of the Ctrain as a major connector for a regional transit system, since CP and the regional partnership can't seem to agree on a regional rail system.

[Hali87]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7187/6966749211_3971a92419_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7187/6966749211_3971a92419_b.jpg
Not sure if the text is readable, or whether people can zoom in in this format. Let me know if you can/can't.

@Halifaxboyns, I haven't been to Calgary in several years but from what I remember most of the suburban C-Train stations were around the same sort of scale as the larger transit terminals in Halifax (though obviously with less space for buses etc.).. is this the case?

[-Harlington-]

Dont know what the legitimacy of this is but - http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/our_canadian_cities/2012/03/08/3296.html

[Nouvellecosse]

The legitimacy would be approximately zero.

It says the service will be starting "on Monday" and that "track construction and overhead wiring went surprisingly unnoticed by some residents."

:haha:

[alps]

Not to mention Rick Astley is the spokesman.. :haha:

[-Harlington-]

Haha, I only read the first part before I posted that

I see it also says the 20 and 80 will be the routes it serves
So these tracks are going out to herring cove and sackville, lol

Someones rick rolling Halifax, aha

[Hali87]

"...track construction and overhead wiring went surprisingly unnoticed by some residents..."

Yeah right.

[halifaxboyns]

Considering that you would be talking about securing rights on HRM land (the road) and then getting power from Nova Scotia Power, I find it doubtful. The legalities of setting up the service on city land alone would take weeks to figure out.

[scooby074]

"Riders feel hurt by the labour dispute, but we're not about to give the riders up," said HSC Manager of Rolling Stock, T. Richard Astley. "We're never going to let you down. Will we run around and desert you? We will not. Our trams are on rails."

Comedy gold right there.

Funny thing is it's been picked up by others as the truth. GF mentioned it to me, she saw it on Facebook:haha:

[Hali87]

Much more readable version of the poster here (https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/poster.pdf?w=f10b1050)

[halifaxboyns]

The link doesn't appear to work.

[Hali87]

Brutal. It did earlier but I see what you mean. Any tips on where a guy can host a pdf?

edit: fixed the link (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3669163/poster-pdf-march-13-2012-2-11-am-2-0-meg?da=y).

[scooby074]

Read an article in the Chronicle today about merchants along Agricola opposing a bike lane. Made me think about "business" NIMBYs and rail. http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/76461-businesses-oppose-agricola-street-bike-lane

Can you see businesses welcoming LRT with open arms if it means losing parking in front of their businesses?

Or will this have to be forced through against their wishes? Could be yet another roadblock to overcome.

[Hali87]

Read an article in the Chronicle today about merchants along Agricola opposing a bike lane. Made me think about "business" NIMBYs and rail. http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/76461-businesses-oppose-agricola-street-bike-lane

Can you see businesses welcoming LRT with open arms if it means losing parking in front of their businesses?

Or will this have to be forced through against their wishes? Could be yet another roadblock to overcome.

I think businesses along the line that are near a station would be all for it, and those who are along the line (and therefore lose parking spots) but are further from stations would be more opposed. In the proposal I'm using for my thesis, I chose Hollis and Robie to serve the southern portion of the peninsula because there aren't many businesses that front onto the southern portions of these streets and the few that do are mostly restaurants. Likewise the northern parts of Barrington and Agricola do not have businesses.

[scooby074]

I think businesses along the line that are near a station would be all for it, and those who are along the line (and therefore lose parking spots) but are further from stations would be more opposed. In the proposal I'm using for my thesis, I chose Hollis and Robie to serve the southern portion of the peninsula because there aren't many businesses that front onto the southern portions of these streets and the few that do are mostly restaurants. Likewise the northern parts of Barrington and Agricola do not have businesses.

Good thing you anticipated the potential backlash and chose suitable routes, but any LRT corridor is going to have backlash. Hollis has lots of parking metres, and vehicles making deliveries all throughout the day (blocking traffic in the process!!).

Honestly i was surprised at the fight over a simple bike lane. Made me think what would happen with a larger project which would have greater impact, like removing parking metres. I know that in theory LRT should reduce the vehicles needing parking so it should all even out, but how this would play out in practice could be a completely different thing. Downtown parking is bad at the best of times, but as parking lots are turned to building lots it will only get worse.

I guess the political reality could be interesting when and if LRT comes.

[halifaxboyns]

It's sad that Via has further reduced the ocean to three times a week, from what used to be daily (now I think it's 6x weekly).

I've taken that train many times and enjoyed it quite a bit.
However, I'm taking an optimistic approach to this. Yes the cut is sad, but if the Nova Centre gets off the ground and the economy in Nova Scotia keeps improving, I could see potential demand increase for conferences. But that is of course speculation - but I know if I lived in Ontario and was coming to Halifax for a conference, I would probably take the train there and back just to say I did it. :)

I don't know if people who work at the current WTCC, when they help people organize conferences in Halifax really encourage a variety of transportation options. If not, they should be telling people that not only can they fly, but drive or take the train.

Here is some of the media coverage:
CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/06/27/ns-via-rail-meeting.html)
Herald (http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/business/111171-via-rail-cuts-back-on-halifax-montreal-service)

[someone123]

Porter from Halifax-Montreal is a 50 minute flight and costs $200. That's why Via is struggling.

Via would be useful if they could do the Montreal trip in, say, 10-12 hours and cost only $80 or something like that. They could also be useful on the Moncton-Halifax route if they had decent schedules and were cheap. I don't think that's going to happen though.

[cormiermax]

What a shame, the train is my main source for getting from Halifax to Moncton. Such a better experience than taking the horrible milk run bus route while sitting next to some drunk drifter. Hopefully one day the six day service can be restored.

[MonctonRad]

There should really be daily train service from Halifax to Moncton and on to Saint John.

The rail bed on these main lines is in good shape, relatively high speed could be maintained and if stops were limited to Halifax, Truro, Moncton and Saint John, I think the travel time would be quite competitive with the bus.

Perhaps this could be considered an opportunity for the provinces of NB and NS to lobby VIA for such a service. We need daily train service in the Maritimes.

[q12]

It sounds like its only reduced in winter time to 3x a week and will stay 6x in the summer peak season.

[scooby074]

Very disappointed in the cuts to VIA.

I dont believe the changes to the west coast run have been announced, but I'll be surprised if they suffer as bad as we do, CONsidering our current government.

If anything funding to VIA should be increased and the fleet modernized (with higher speeds and more efficient engines). This would increase usage.

Sort of a "build it and they will come" theory. Many people dont like the train primarily due to the train's relatively slow speed; fix that and I'm sure ridership will increase.

Ive taken the train between here and Ottawa several times and its always a relaxing trip. Its nice to be able to walk around.

[pnightingale]

The limitation in speed for the train is more related to track speed limits than a limitation of the engines I believe. And in some cases they are altering the roadbed to make it safer for freight trains which travel much slower than passenger trains. In Cape Breton a few years ago there was a freight train that derailed because the trackbed was tilted around a bend to allow the Budd RDC trains that used to run to go faster, but this caused problems for freight trains so they changed the rail bed.