Rail-based Transit Discussion

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

A frustration of mine is that there are never any investigation results released for any accident.

I feel that if there were some project to provide causal information of accidents and it were presented to the public in an educational manner, that people might better understand how their everyday actions could lead to tragedy in an instant. Nobody heads out on/in their bike/car/truck thinking that they may die or kill somebody that day, but it happens regularly, in an instant, and there are always factors that lead up to the accident that could have prevented it.

The media reports accidents on a regular basis, but only the sensational bits. The result is that the public is aware that accidents happen but not necessarily why and thus continues to commit the same errors day after day resulting in similar, preventable accidents over and over.

Perhaps if there were some information sharing they might understand how accidents happen, and it might prompt them think a little more when they are riding/driving.

Police accident investigations determine what happened, who's at fault, and what rules were broken if any, so that fines can be issued.

Tsb investigations look to find what happened and the series of events that let to the incident so that specific safety risks can be identified and remedied.

Police investigations are not about safety. They are about compliance to rules.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

A frustration of mine is that there are never any investigation results released for any accident.

I feel that if there were some project to provide causal information of accidents and it were presented to the public in an educational manner, that people might better understand how their everyday actions could lead to tragedy in an instant. Nobody heads out on/in their bike/car/truck thinking that they may die or kill somebody that day, but it happens regularly, in an instant, and there are always factors that lead up to the accident that could have prevented it.

The media reports accidents on a regular basis, but only the sensational bits. The result is that the public is aware that accidents happen but not necessarily why and thus continues to commit the same errors day after day resulting in similar, preventable accidents over and over.

Perhaps if there were some information sharing they might understand how accidents happen, and it might prompt them think a little more when they are riding/driving.

A suspicious death in the UK generally results in an inquest unless it is obviously a murder. UK papers report all the evidence. An inquest quashes rumours. Apparently inquests in Canada are rare, such a secrecy obsessed society.
In the case I mentioned I agree with your opinion that we can all learn from such an accident if the facts are made public.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

Police accident investigations determine what happened, who's at fault, and what rules were broken if any, so that fines can be issued.

Tsb investigations look to find what happened and the series of events that let to the incident so that specific safety risks can be identified and remedied.

Police investigations are not about safety. They are about compliance to rules.

Perhaps, but the information gathered at a police investigation in most cases would be more than sufficient to understand cause and effect. I have known police accident investigators and can tell you they are quite thorough in their work.

As I understand it, a system is just not in place to be able to use the information for anything else.

And FWIW, TSB investigations are about defects for the most part, not about information that could be used to educate the public, but 'is there a problem' and 'how to fix it'.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Colin May

A suspicious death in the UK generally results in an inquest unless it is obviously a murder. UK papers report all the evidence. An inquest quashes rumours. Apparently inquests in Canada are rare, such a secrecy obsessed society.
In the case I mentioned I agree with your opinion that we can all learn from such an accident if the facts are made public.

Thanks Colin, I didn't realize the difference between the UK and Canada in that respect.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Perhaps, but the information gathered at a police investigation in most cases would be more than sufficient to understand cause and effect. I have known police accident investigators and can tell you they are quite thorough in their work.

As I understand it, a system is just not in place to be able to use the information for anything else.

And FWIW, TSB investigations are about defects for the most part, not about information that could be used to educate the public, but 'is there a problem' and 'how to fix it'.

the scope of tsb investigations is such that the public rarely is in a position to learn from the incident, however industry and steakholders often do.

I didnt say poice were not thorough, just safety is not their primary motive.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks Colin, I didn't realize the difference between the UK and Canada in that respect.

I believe (in NS at least) Death certificates are not public record. while cause of death is a broad category, i believe there was a case in the UK where statistical examination of death certificates found a doctor who it turned out was deliberately killing his patients...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

the scope of tsb investigations is such that the public rarely is in a position to learn from the incident, however industry and steakholders often do.

I didnt say poice were not thorough, just safety is not their primary motive.

Understood.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

I believe (in NS at least) Death certificates are not public record. while cause of death is a broad category, i believe there was a case in the UK where statistical examination of death certificates found a doctor who it turned out was deliberately killing his patients...

Many older Nova Scotia death certificates up to 1964 are available online : https://www.novascotiagenealogy.com/

And here recent UK inquests : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...killed-11.html " As inquiries continue by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, Ms Schofield adjourned the inquest to a date to be fixed.
The coroner said: 'I will conduct and full and fearless inquiry as the law requires but as you can imagine this will take time for the various agencies to report to me.'
She added: 'Many people have been affected by the tragic events in August 22 2015 and my thoughts are primarily with the families.'
A pre-inquest review will be held on March 22 and Ms Schofield said she would provisionally set the full inquest into all the deaths next June, ahead of the first anniversary of the disaster.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...leep-sofa.html

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

...
The buses are unfortunate but if you're up a few floors and behind the setback like the one they have the noise and exhaust probably isn't that bad. Presumably those units all have AC. It's horrible to have to choose between boiling in your apartment or listening to loud traffic all night in the summer.

This ties back in with the transit thread in that I wish something would be done about transit in the urban core. Transit in Halifax seems to be widely viewed as a utilitarian service where frills are a waste, and traditionally there's been a big slant toward coverage rather than service quality.

I've been to Portland, Oregon a few times and was back there a couple of weeks ago. They have several streetcar routes that carry about as many passengers as Halifax's main transit corridors. It's easy to imagine a similar service in Halifax when you see how they operate in Portland (the level of development/traffic, street widths, and topography are all in the same general ballpark). They're fairly old at this point but they are still much nicer than buses. A narrow street with electric streetcar service is a completely different environment from one filled with roaring diesel buses.

One of the novel things about Portland (for North America) is that the streetcar addition was driven partly to increase the desirability of the inner city and promote development. Moving the largest number of people around as quickly and cheaply as possible was not the sole or even necessarily the prime motivation. An enormous amount of real estate development occurred near the streetcar lines after they went in, generating extra income for the city and offsetting the cost. Had this spinoff effect been overlooked the streetcars would have looked like a very bad investment. Unfortunately, the commuter rail study makes exactly that mistake and Halifax is not even to the point of seriously considering new forms of transit for the urban core.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ Can you post your recommended streetcar route in the rail transportation thread?

Originally Posted by someone123

It might be fun to make some new routes up if I have time, not that I am a transit expert.

One thing that has changed is that the Cogswell redevelopment isn't too far off, and commuter rail might happen. I think an interesting route would be one that links up the South End rail station to downtown, serves the new Cogswell neighbourhood, then follows Gottingen through the North End, Stadacona, shipyard, and some areas chosen for development potential (e.g. Young Street). This isn't unlike the classic pre-war streetcar route along Barrington. Maybe you could even get away with just streetcars and community shuttles on the peninsula. The streetcar would connect up with commuter rail, MetroLink, and the ferries.

Obviously I like the concept of improving downtown transit, but I'm not sold on the idea that a streetcar would accomplish much. First of all, a streetcar downtown or mainly in very central areas like the one in Portland isn't going to "carry as many passengers as our main transit corridors" unless we force most people coming into downtown on all those different routes to transfer onto the streetcar just to travel a short distance. That would keep the diesel buses out of downtown, but would also be crazy.

The other option would be to have the streetcar go from Mumford to, say, the Bridge terminal, perhaps making the short jog down to the ferry terminal. It wouldn't be unreasonable to force transfers at the Bridge and Mumford, however you still have services for the peninsula that would need to go downtown. Definitely #7, but also several others such as #20, #6, #2, etc. depending on the route the streetcar took between downtown and Mumford.

This could be solved by having several streetcar lines that better served the peninsula, but this then gets very $$. I still say the best option is to simply electrify the buses. To start, make them dual mode diesel electric trolly buses, and electrify the central corridor. This is the type of bus used on Boston's Silver line. The first electrified section could be SGR and Barrington from SGR to Scotia sq, and eventually the whole #1 route could be done and the #1 could be operated with standard trolley buses. And perhaps the Portland corridor could eventually be electrified as you suggested previously, although that's a rather long distance. Perhaps just as far as Penhorn.

[ILoveHalifax]

When using buses in Halifax it is not uncommon for the buses to have to wait for the bus in front to move before pulling up to a bus stop. If most of the buses were removed from the peninsula in favor of a couple or a few street car lines, there would have to be very frequent service (5 min?)
I also advocate that street cars could go for example northbound on one street and southbound on a street 1 or 2 blocks over. Westbound could go on Chebucto and eastbound could be on Quinpool.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The other option would be to have the streetcar go from Mumford to, say, the Bridge terminal, perhaps making the short jog down to the ferry terminal. It wouldn't be unreasonable to force transfers at the Bridge and Mumford, however you still have services for the peninsula that would need to go downtown.

This almost sounds like the old "Belt Line" tram service that ran prior to 1949.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This almost sounds like the old "Belt Line" tram service that ran prior to 1949.

Why did all the trams stop running?

[Nouvellecosse]

From the information I've heard it was because the tracks were in need a major investments requiring basically a complete rebuild, and streetcars were considered unnecessary due to the availability of diesel powered buses which didn't require such an investment. The rails were originally built into the streets to make the carriages easier for the horses to pull due to the reduced friction and switched to electric before internal combustion engines became common but when electric motors were widely available.

Due to this history, streetcars were seen as archaic (both here and nearly everywhere else) once buses became prevalent. Buses were seen as this wonderful modern advancement in that they were powerful enough to propel themselves without the need for tracks or electrification or the associated investments and maintenance. Plus, not being tethered to a specific trajectory meant they were able to maneuver around obstacles. And this was before any environmental concerns existed and before anyone contemplated that the oil supply would ever be an issue.

Several of the advantages that we attribute to streetcars today simply weren't factors then. We view streetcars as being higher capacity, but the streetcars of that era, the old birneys, were not very large and weren't coupled. Energy efficiency wasn't an issue as oil was cheap - probably cheaper than electricity - and being quiet and comfortable, well, people were frustrated by our ageing streetcar technology and infrastructure that had been under-maintained for years and wasn't very enjoyable.

In other words, it was an all-round different era.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

From the information I've heard it was because the tracks were in need a major investments requiring basically a complete rebuild, and streetcars were considered unnecessary due to the availability of diesel powered buses which didn't require such an investment. The rails were originally built into the streets to make the carriages easier for the horses to pull due to the reduced friction and switched to electric before internal combustion engines became common but when electric motors were widely available.

Due to this history, streetcars were seen as archaic (both here and nearly everywhere else) once buses became prevalent. Buses were seen as this wonderful modern advancement in that they were powerful enough to propel themselves without the need for tracks or electrification or the associated investments and maintenance. Plus, not being tethered to a specific trajectory meant they were able to maneuver around obstacles. And this was before any environmental concerns existed and before anyone contemplated that the oil supply would ever be an issue.

Several of the advantages that we attribute to streetcars today simply weren't factors then. We view streetcars as being higher capacity, but the streetcars of that era, the old birneys, were not very large and weren't coupled. Energy efficiency wasn't an issue as oil was cheap - probably cheaper than electricity - and being quiet and comfortable, well, people were frustrated by our ageing streetcar technology and infrastructure that had been under-maintained for years and wasn't very enjoyable.

In other words, it was an all-round different era.

Kinda like what happened elsewhere. Look up General Motors streetcar conspiracy.

Would the transit commission let their buses become unusable?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The other option would be to have the streetcar go from Mumford to, say, the Bridge terminal, perhaps making the short jog down to the ferry terminal. It wouldn't be unreasonable to force transfers at the Bridge and Mumford, however you still have services for the peninsula that would need to go downtown. Definitely #7, but also several others such as #20, #6, #2, etc. depending on the route the streetcar took between downtown and Mumford.

Yes, I think that if there were streetcars they'd be a lot more useful connecting up to the transit terminals.

I don't really think of it as an all-or-nothing proposition. Many routes here in Vancouver that have electrified buses still have diesel buses on them. It's nevertheless a lot nicer to have one every 15 minutes rather than one every 2 minutes. The improvement to the pedestrian environment, for people sitting outside on patios, etc. is amazing and I think the impact of loud noise and exhaust is really under-appreciated.

I was thinking of the streetcar as more of a showcase project designed to improve the main corridors of the city, encourage more development in some adjacent neighbourhoods, and offer something interesting for visitors to encourage them to travel around the city more.

Electrified buses could be nice too but they're not quite as nice as streetcars as far as comfort and infrastructure permanence. One streetcar line plus some electrified bus lines would be a huge step forward for Halifax. Even just electrifying the 1 would be a huge improvement too.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Kinda like what happened elsewhere. Look up General Motors streetcar conspiracy.

Would the transit commission let their buses become unusable?

Part of it was due to rationing and lack of resources during the war years.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yes, I think that if there were streetcars they'd be a lot more useful connecting up to the transit terminals.

I don't really think of it as an all-or-nothing proposition. Many routes here in Vancouver that have electrified buses still have diesel buses on them. It's nevertheless a lot nicer to have one every 15 minutes rather than one every 2 minutes. The improvement to the pedestrian environment, for people sitting outside on patios, etc. is amazing and I think the impact of loud noise and exhaust is really under-appreciated.

I was thinking of the streetcar as more of a showcase project designed to improve the main corridors of the city, encourage more development in some adjacent neighbourhoods, and offer something interesting for visitors to encourage them to travel around the city more.

Electrified buses could be nice too but they're not quite as nice as streetcars as far as comfort and infrastructure permanence. One streetcar line plus some electrified bus lines would be a huge step forward for Halifax. Even just electrifying the 1 would be a huge improvement too.

Yeah I think it would be impractical to replace the entire fleet with dual mode stock since some of the routes would only operate for a short section of the electrified corridor, and the dual mode buses would be more expensive and complex.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Part of it was due to rationing and lack of resources during the war years.

And to kick start an economy, what better way than to refurbish old equipment and building new equipment?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

From the information I've heard it was because the tracks were in need a major investments requiring basically a complete rebuild, and streetcars were considered unnecessary due to the availability of diesel powered buses which didn't require such an investment. The rails were originally built into the streets to make the carriages easier for the horses to pull due to the reduced friction and switched to electric before internal combustion engines became common but when electric motors were widely available.

Due to this history, streetcars were seen as archaic (both here and nearly everywhere else) once buses became prevalent. Buses were seen as this wonderful modern advancement in that they were powerful enough to propel themselves without the need for tracks or electrification or the associated investments and maintenance. Plus, not being tethered to a specific trajectory meant they were able to maneuver around obstacles. And this was before any environmental concerns existed and before anyone contemplated that the oil supply would ever be an issue.

Several of the advantages that we attribute to streetcars today simply weren't factors then. We view streetcars as being higher capacity, but the streetcars of that era, the old birneys, were not very large and weren't coupled. Energy efficiency wasn't an issue as oil was cheap - probably cheaper than electricity - and being quiet and comfortable, well, people were frustrated by our ageing streetcar technology and infrastructure that had been under-maintained for years and wasn't very enjoyable.

In other words, it was an all-round different era.

Actually, there's a pretty good accounting of how it really happened at the following link:

As a preamble to the article linked below, during WWII Halifax's population grew significantly in a short period of time (hence the need to build all the "temporary" small houses that you see around various neighborhoods today) to support Halifax's military effort. It happened so quickly that the transit system, among other things, was basically at overcapacity on a regular basis.

http://www.halifaxtransit.ca/streetcars/theend.php

Some great pics of the vehicles that replaced the streetcar network at the link below:



http://www.trolleybuses.net/hfx/hfx.htm

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

From the information I've heard it was because the tracks were in need a major investments requiring basically a complete rebuild, and streetcars were considered unnecessary due to the availability of diesel powered buses which didn't require such an investment. The rails were originally built into the streets to make the carriages easier for the horses to pull due to the reduced friction and switched to electric before internal combustion engines became common but when electric motors were widely available.

Due to this history, streetcars were seen as archaic (both here and nearly everywhere else) once buses became prevalent. Buses were seen as this wonderful modern advancement in that they were powerful enough to propel themselves without the need for tracks or electrification or the associated investments and maintenance. Plus, not being tethered to a specific trajectory meant they were able to maneuver around obstacles. And this was before any environmental concerns existed and before anyone contemplated that the oil supply would ever be an issue.

Several of the advantages that we attribute to streetcars today simply weren't factors then. We view streetcars as being higher capacity, but the streetcars of that era, the old birneys, were not very large and weren't coupled. Energy efficiency wasn't an issue as oil was cheap - probably cheaper than electricity - and being quiet and comfortable, well, people were frustrated by our ageing streetcar technology and infrastructure that had been under-maintained for years and wasn't very enjoyable.

In other words, it was an all-round different era.

the system was old, and basically everything needed replacing. buses were also seen to be advantageous, as they could operate without centralized facilities, which would be a target if the cold war got hot.

Vancouver loves their trolley buses. power is cheap in BC, so they save millions in operating costs, from fuel alone.