Rail-based Transit Discussion

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I think it is a safe assumption is that if we invest $30-300 million in rail, we would re-route the buses to serve the stations. If you had rail, then almost every bus route running in areas that serve as rails catchment would be redesigned. There is plenty of space at the Via station to put buses, if you say tore down the old part that Acadien lines uses and built a real bus terminal, maybe serving both Acadien and MT.

I still want to see a short tunnel connecting the tracks @ VIA station to Scotia Sq. Yes it would be expensive, but it would just be a short tunnel, so not that expensive.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I still want to see a short tunnel connecting the tracks @ VIA station to Scotia Sq. Yes it would be expensive, but it would just be a short tunnel, so not that expensive.

Expensive and far from short. I would think it would be a more efficient use of money to build a tunnel for the train to go into the downtown or put the tracks into the street.

Personally, I've always favoured a multi-modal approach - much like Toronto. Use the train station as a main transfer point for regional rail and then develop and LRT system which people could then transfer into with little to no problem that would take them to downtown, the universities and the hospitals. This way, you could use Mumford and the train station as the two main transfer points into and out of the city.

[someone123]

A kilometre of tunnel is enormously expensive compared to a kilometre of at-grade rail tracks. Seattle has a downtown bus tunnel that runs about 2 kilometres and it cost $450M in 1990, which would be more like $700M today. That tunnel is more elaborate than what would be necessary strictly speaking but it would still require an investment in the hundreds of millions of dollars, if the goal were to connect up rail station and Scotia Square. When you look at the big picture, it would probably be cheaper to create a new surface grade alignment by sacrificing some streets than it would be to build a tunnel to correct for the poor routing of the existing track, and the end result would be better.

A while ago I think Hali87 presented a plan for a mixed LRT and commuter rail system that simply called for transfers from the suburban heavy rail portion to the LRT portion that would serve the city centre. That's not a bad setup, and ultimately I think there's a ton of value in having some sort of LRT/streetcar type service throughout areas like the North End in order to support transit-oriented development. In the suburbs similarly the focus shouldn't be entirely on improving the experience for somebody driving in from Hammonds Plains, a tough customer who is unlikely to want transit in the first place. The best potential riders will be residents of new buildings built right next to the stations. There are already many, many multi-unit buildings being constructed along the Bedford Highway and there could be far more with improved transit, including King's Wharf style developments built on infill into the Bedford Basin. They are already creating infill for one of these projects by Mill Cove.

Where I do see a tunnel working could be right around Scotia Square itself, or some sort of connection between Scotia Square/Barrington and the ferry terminal. The specifics would depend a lot on what is eventually done with the Cogswell lands, but it could easily tie in with additional office towers or some kind of Metro Centre replacement, for example.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I don't think those NJ Transit trains are FRA compliant. The system uses complete time separation to isolate the light rail system from the freight system for all operational hours.

Didn't I post this:

Federal Railroad Administration Approves First Integrated Use of Stadler GTW Rail Vehicle for Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA).

On Monday, June 4, 2012, Administrator Joseph Szabo of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in conjunction with the American Public Transportation Association Annual Rail Conference will formally announce approval of DCTA’s request to operate the Stadler GTW concurrent with traditional, compliant equipment. This means that for the first time ever; light-weight/fuel efficient, eco-friendly low-floor vehicles will be permitted to operate in rail corridors concurrently with traditionally compliant vehicles. The waiver, a first of its kind, will expand commuter rail options for transportation authorities across the United States. In 2009, the FRA’s Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) prepared a set of technical criteria and procedures for evaluating passenger rail train-sets that have been built to alternative designs. The alternative designs enable lighter, more fuel-efficient rail vehicles equipped with a Crash Energy Management system to commingle with traditionally compliant equipment. The DCTA/Stadler alternative design waiver is the first comprehensive submittal that follows the RSAC Engineering Task Force (ETF) procedures for Tier I equipment. The approval of the DCTA/Stadler waiver request demonstrates that the enhanced crashworthiness and passenger protection systems inherent to DCTA’s new rail vehicles meet the latest and most stringent safety standards in the U.S.

http://www.dcta.net/news-events/dcta...enu-id-59.html

Welcome to the future - FRA alternate compliance is a reality.

[MalcolmTucker]

A reality in the USA ... There is no issue buying some Budd MDU and building platforms, and not having to wait forever for a waiver from Transport Canada.

The waiver also is possibly based on interactions with Budd cars on the line, not with a freight train, built on the earlier operating conditions for the commuter service with Budd cars. http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/s...ting-phase.ece

Freight could pass on the line while the line is shut down midday and other hours, I don't think with two way service on a single track with half hour ish service you're going to have co-mingling anyways.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

A reality in the USA ... There is no issue buying some Budd MDU and building platforms, and not having to wait forever for a waiver from Transport Canada.

The waiver also is possibly based on interactions with Budd cars on the line, not with a freight train, built on the earlier operating conditions for the commuter service with Budd cars. http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/s...ting-phase.ece

Freight could pass on the line while the line is shut down midday and other hours, I don't think with two way service on a single track with half hour ish service you're going to have co-mingling anyways.

My admittedly limited understanding of alternate FRA compliance is that it doesn't make a differentiation between heavy stock, freight or passenger. While it hasn't happened yet (this is the first approval) freight and alternate compliant passenger could run on the same lines eventually.

That said, I think a successful hybrid low floor alternate FRA compliant tram/commuter rail will require a second rail line, with additional sidings, to be successful. That puts the pricetag back in the $120-180 million range, but, that is still not much compared to what Ottawa is spending, for example.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Expensive and far from short. I would think it would be a more efficient use of money to build a tunnel for the train to go into the downtown or put the tracks into the street.

Personally, I've always favoured a multi-modal approach - much like Toronto. Use the train station as a main transfer point for regional rail and then develop and LRT system which people could then transfer into with little to no problem that would take them to downtown, the universities and the hospitals. This way, you could use Mumford and the train station as the two main transfer points into and out of the city.

This is one of the main ideas that I presented in my thesis; to run a "streetcar" line along Robie and Agricola streets and another along Hollis and Barrington with stops every 1 or 2 km, and then use the rail cut for a more commuter-oriented line with stops further apart (since major destinations off the peninsula are further apart). The goal, however, would be to have all three lines operating throughout the day and outside of mixed traffic, so the "streetcar" lines would be in streetcar-only lanes, allowing them to operate as rapid transit rather than traditional streetcars. The main transfer hub would be at SMU for logistical reasons, although the system could be modified to use the VIA station as the hub (it would just make it more complex).

[scooby074]

Via boss in Halifax tomorrow according to the CH. http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/nov...ifax-employees

Hard to imagine that it's good news. Probably just PR to try and spin the recent service reductions.

Apparently he took the train as far as Moncton, but plans on driving (or likely chauffeured) to Halifax.

Perhaps the most ironic thing in the article " Risser said it is unusual for Laliberte to travel to the Atlantic region by train.“Usually, he flies down.”

/yes, I know he's a "busy" executive, but he is the HEAD of Via after all.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by scooby074

Via boss in Halifax tomorrow according to the CH. http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/nov...ifax-employees

Hard to imagine that it's good news. Probably just PR to try and spin the recent service reductions.

Apparently he took the train as far as Moncton, but plans on driving (or likely chauffeured) to Halifax.

Maybe he's going to announce the closure of VIA service east of Moncton!

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Maybe he's going to announce the closure of VIA service east of Moncton!

Wouldnt surprise me.

The death of via, considering the recent reductions seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Reduce service = People are inconvenienced = Reduction in users = Reduction of budget = Reduction of service ... Repeat till there is nothing left

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

A kilometre of tunnel is enormously expensive compared to a kilometre of at-grade rail tracks. Seattle has a downtown bus tunnel that runs about 2 kilometres and it cost $450M in 1990, which would be more like $700M today. That tunnel is more elaborate than what would be necessary strictly speaking but it would still require an investment in the hundreds of millions of dollars, if the goal were to connect up rail station and Scotia Square. When you look at the big picture, it would probably be cheaper to create a new surface grade alignment by sacrificing some streets than it would be to build a tunnel to correct for the poor routing of the existing track, and the end result would be better.

Rail tunnel can be built in some cities for as little as $150 mil per km, but it varies relative to the geography. But a road tunnel like in Seattle is of course going to be much pricier since it needs to be bigger and better ventilated.

But the point is, yes, building something is usually much more expensive than building nothing, but that doesn't mean it's actually expensive. If Halifax had the same proportion of underground infrastructure as Montreal (relative to metro area populations), we'd have 7km of underground rail. Pretty sure we can manage 1km.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But the point is, yes, building something is usually much more expensive than building nothing, but that doesn't mean it's actually expensive. If Halifax had the same proportion of underground infrastructure as Montreal (relative to metro area populations), we'd have 7km of underground rail. Pretty sure we can manage 1km.

It's not the length of tunnel per capita that matters, it's the opportunity cost of being unable to build other projects. Instead of the 1 km tunnel Metro Transit could, say, build a complete surface streetcar line to replace the busiest bus corridor.

I think there are a lot of viable improvements that could be made to the transit system, but it makes a lot of sense to take care of the "low hanging fruit" first before building stuff like longer rail tunnels. Halifax could get a lot out of some improved terminals, busways, and express buses/BRT. For areas like Bedford which have limited roadway available there are alternatives like commuter rail. Along the major routes in the core, streetcar or LRT might make a lot of sense. These routes could be put into tunnels in the future if there's money for it.

[Waye Mason]

We don't need a tunnel, we have two railway cuts wrap around the peninsula, and we have the advent of surface rail that is low floor and can run like a street car.

Just run north along Barrington, south along Hollis.

Only problem is unless we do it as a HOV only right of way it would mean the streetcar at grade was stuck in traffic.

These are engineering problems, though. I could see us run north/south line on Hollis and just lose the parking there. I think that is an acceptable trade off.

[halifaxboyns]

Hollis is likely too narrow to do two way traffic for a streetcar - why not inbound along Barrington and Hollis with outbound being Lower Water Street and then back to Barrington?

I have a couple concerns about putting a streetcar on Spring Garden Road. First is for the businesses - how would deliveries be handled? I'm assuming off peak and there would have to be a schedule. So long as they are accommodated, then I'm fine with it. Second is the turn from SGR to Barrington Street. That is a tight corner, even for articulated buses. So if we use something like this, I don't know if it could make the turn. But if we use something like this it might be okay.

One of my reasons for proposing a streetcar network like I did, was to use it as a mechanism for growth and change. I think we need to look at areas like Agricola, Windsor, Quinpool, Robie and around the Hydrostone as a way of encouraging future growth and change. Same with Highfield Park, Shannon Park, North Dartmouth and Wallace Heights.

Another thing I would mention is that if a road has a landscaped median, this may be an opportunity to use the median for the streetcars. I've been reading that there are ways to transplant mature trees (and many of the trees would be) - why not relocate them to Point Plesant Park and then put in a streetcar?

[Antigonish]

Do you think they could sacrifice Hollis Street for an at-grade LRT rail, like they have in downtown Calgary? Or would losing that street congest the absolute shit out of Barrington and Lower Water?

If the logistics were there I'd say that would be the best bet connection downtown to the rail cut.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by NISH89

Do you think they could sacrifice Hollis Street for an at-grade LRT rail, like they have in downtown Calgary? Or would losing that street congest the absolute shit out of Barrington and Lower Water?

I think it's easy to overestimate the importance of congestion and the role of streets like Barrington as arterials. The downtown stretch of Barrington is one lane each way and, if pedestrian counts were to go up, it would handle even less traffic than it does now. Downtown Barrington's throughput for commuters is at the end of the day a very minor concern and could be hugely outweighed by a single transit line carrying tens of thousands of people per day. As Lower Water Street is built up more its role as an artery will also diminish.

If Halifax had a good LRT system then congestion at peak hours on downtown streets would be much less significant than it is now. Most people would be on transit and many people driving would have a good alternative to shorten their commute. As for the people who live in Ecum Secum and can't take LRT, well, that's the downside of living in the boonies (though with park and rides in the suburbs even they might have a quicker commute on transit).

[Antigonish]

^^We're on the same page. It's a shame the average coast reader (or contributing writer) would jump all over this issue with "please think of the cars!!". I'm afraid if it was brought forward the people with less of a clue would hold more of the cards on having the idea built/scrapped.

[Antigonish]

Sorry for the double post, but the time I've spent in downtown Calgary this spring and summer, I've noticed all times during the day, including peak hours, the traffic in the core near the LRT lines are almost a ghost town in terms of traffic. For a city over a million people and almost completely dependant on cars or trucks it was mindblowing how big a (positive) effect on traffic the train system made.

[Waye Mason]

Survey:HRM residents want better transit
Commuter rail system also sought

Improved public transit in the Halifax region is a top priority for most residents, results from city hall’s latest survey show.

And the establishment of a commuter rail system is the preference of many in the municipality concerned about impeded traffic.

Halifax Regional Municipality is home to about 400,000 people. As it continues to grow, “traffic congestion is expected to increase,” a
consultant’s report on the citizen survey results said.

It said 61 per cent of respondents reported that an upgraded transit network was “very high” on their list of priorities, and 41 per cent
rated “the investment in commuter rail” a very high priority.

Full article: http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...better-transit

I mean, you know I am a long time rail advocate, but really, the "city" part of Halifax is 300,000, the 400K number includes the whole county. I still think rail is worth looking at, because we have so few ways on or off the peninsula, there is a huge capital cost to creating dedicated busways OR rail. Either way we have a massive expense to break the bottleneck on the landward side of the peninsula.

On the Dartmouth side, we get around the bottleneck with ferries but dump the users into poorly serviced terminals with buses that get caught in gridlock. Some day I will video tape the mad rush of people running to get a seat (or sometimes even a ride) on the Portland hills MetroLink when the Halifax to Woodside ferry comes in, carrying 200-300 people, half of whom want to take the Metrolink bus, capacity 50ish seats.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

On the Dartmouth side, we get around the bottleneck with ferries but dump the users into poorly serviced terminals with buses that get caught in gridlock. Some day I will video tape the mad rush of people running to get a seat (or sometimes even a ride) on the Portland hills MetroLink when the Halifax to Woodside ferry comes in, carrying 200-300 people, half of whom want to take the Metrolink bus, capacity 50ish seats.

They should consider themselves lucky. I always assumed it was part of the standard ATU operator training course to have the bus pull away from the temrinal the moment the operator sees a group of people disembark and attempt to make a connection.