Halifax Transit

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I don't think auto transportation is generally regarded as a bad thing because of its association with "personal freedom" (which is debatable anyway) but more because of its effects. Two very common underlying values influencing contemporary planning are efficiency and equitability. Designing cities to facilitate car use is not equitable (because not everyone can drive)

About as left-wing as one can get. Bring everyone down to an equitable level of misery, take away their choices of lifestyle.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

About as left-wing as one can get. Bring everyone down to an equitable level of misery, take away their choices of lifestyle.

Indeed, equitability means bringing everyone to the lowest common denominator. Instead of risng people to the top, you bring everyone down to the bottom. Please refer to East Germany prior to reunification........

[portapetey]

Well. This chat about rails has really gone off the...rails.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Well. This chat about rails has really gone off the...rails.

Indeed. I'm actually a big proponent of commuter rail in Halifax. Given the geography of HRM and the limited access points to the peninsula, I think commuter rail is actually a no brainer compared to the alternatives (BRT,ferries etc).

I was just supporting Keith in his never ending Quixotic adventure against the left wing tendencies of modern urbanism........

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Indeed. I'm actually a big proponent of commuter rail in Halifax. Given the geography of HRM and the limited access points to the peninsula, I think commuter rail is actually a no brainer compared to the alternatives (BRT,ferries etc).

The Bedford Highway corridor in particular is growing a lot, needs better transit, and isn't well-suited to many alternatives. I don't necessarily think that a big commuter rail network makes sense, but I do think this particular route does.

Over the long term I think a good solution would be a mixed system with some kind of improved high-frequency service for the core and a mix of commuter rail, BRT, and ferries for the suburbs. No single project or technology is likely to be a magic bullet for transportation problems in the city over the medium term.

[cptstubing]

This stretch of road is a good candidate for a median based transit system. Ensure buses are kept moving and aren't lumped into the rest of regular traffic, and you'll have happy transit riders, some solo driver converts, and really pissed off solo commuters watching bus after bus pass them.

[cptstubing]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Indeed. I'm actually a big proponent of commuter rail in Halifax. Given the geography of HRM and the limited access points to the peninsula, I think commuter rail is actually a no brainer compared to the alternatives (BRT,ferries etc).

I was just supporting Keith in his never ending Quixotic adventure against the left wing tendencies of modern urbanism........

Commuter rail would be fantastic, but do you think people's ideas of trains in North America heavily influenced by reports of train wrecks every 2 weeks?

Not only that but ask anyone here to characterise a train and they'll probably use words like 'noisy', 'slow', 'rusted', 'polluting', 'screeching'...

Not that we'd use the trains CN uses, but I think if the city can't afford a proper commuter rail system right now or even 10 years down the road, the next best thing should be done to mitigate piss poor traffic on and off the peninsula.

Median transit system on the Bedford Hwy, Connaught Ave.
Reversing lanes down Robie and Quinpool so transit can use empty lanes on opposite side of the road during peak hours.

Would this not be way cheaper than commuter rail?
Side note: I'm not biased against rail, I used it in Seoul and Taipei and loved every second while on a train.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by cptstubing

This stretch of road is a good candidate for a median based transit system. Ensure buses are kept moving and aren't lumped into the rest of regular traffic, and you'll have happy transit riders, some solo driver converts, and really pissed off solo commuters watching bus after bus pass them.

Parts of the Bedford Highway are still two lanes, and they're two lanes because they abut private property or large rock faces. Widening the road by at least two more lanes wouldn't necessarily be a better, quicker, or easier project than commuter rail.

I do think reversing lanes can be useful in general though. They're already used in a few places around the city. They're only useful if you want the lane allocation to be dynamic. Some congested areas have a roughly equal amount of traffic going in either direction; I bet this will become even more common if the population of the urban core continues to rise.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by cptstubing

Commuter rail would be fantastic, but do you think people's ideas of trains in North America heavily influenced by reports of train wrecks every 2 weeks?

Ah, yes, all those wrecking, exploding, passenger trains in North America.

Not only that but ask anyone here to characterise a train and they'll probably use words like 'noisy', 'slow', 'rusted', 'polluting', 'screeching'...

Also good words to describe most commuter auto traffic.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Well. This chat about rails has really gone off the...rails.

Well, yes and no - car usage will always be attached to any discussion about commuter rail as the major effect of adding commuter rail is getting cars off the road by creating an alternative to driving. Commuter rail will ease rush-hour traffic on the roads - everybody agrees on that.

Then it seems to split into two camps:

- one that seems to feel that car ownership is greedy and unnecessary and that we should do everything in our power to make life miserable for them so they will eventually be forced to give up their cars, with the implication being that it will benefit the "common good".

- then there's the other camp that appears to see commuter rail as a benefit to the communities it serves in that it adds commuting options for everybody, regardless of car ownership.


I'm not going to delve any further into political philosophies or personal feelings on the subject, but will again state that in order to make this work in our (Canadian) society where people are allowed to choose the option of owning a car if they really want to, the best bet is to make it a world-class, efficient, convenient, comfortable, attractive service. Make people want to use it, rather than feel like they've been forced into using it. Everybody will win if commuter rail is embraced by the citizens of Halifax.

That's my on the matter. Frankly, I'm glad I live in a society where we are encouraged to be the best we can be and we are allowed to have choices on how we wish to live. That's as much as I'm going to say on the matter.

[cptstubing]

Originally Posted by someone123

Parts of the Bedford Highway are still two lanes, and they're two lanes because they abut private property or large rock faces. Widening the road by at least two more lanes wouldn't necessarily be a better, quicker, or easier project than commuter rail.

I do think reversing lanes can be useful in general though. They're already used in a few places around the city. They're only useful if you want the lane allocation to be dynamic. Some congested areas have a roughly equal amount of traffic going in either direction; I bet this will become even more common if the population of the urban core continues to rise.

Reversing lanes are brilliant ideas but create challenges at intersections... not that they can't be overcome. They're worth the challenge they create to me.

How two lanes can be at capacity while two opposing lanes be relatively vacant and unused by buses, a full car, motorcycles, and cyclists is beyond silly. Every single priority 1 street in the city should be reversible. I would even propose that the Macdonald Bridge centre lane be used for buses only during commutes.

[cptstubing]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Well, yes and no - car usage will always be attached to any discussion about commuter rail as the major effect of adding commuter rail is getting cars off the road by creating an alternative to driving. Commuter rail will ease rush-hour traffic on the roads - everybody agrees on that.

Then it seems to split into two camps:

- one that seems to feel that car ownership is greedy and unnecessary and that we should do everything in our power to make life miserable for them so they will eventually be forced to give up their cars, with the implication being that it will benefit the "common good".

- then there's the other camp that appears to see commuter rail as a benefit to the communities it serves in that it adds commuting options for everybody, regardless of car ownership.


I'm not going to delve any further into political philosophies or personal feelings on the subject, but will again state that in order to make this work in our (Canadian) society where people are allowed to choose the option of owning a car if they really want to, the best bet is to make it a world-class, efficient, convenient, comfortable, attractive service. Make people want to use it, rather than feel like they've been forced into using it. Everybody will win if commuter rail is embraced by the citizens of Halifax.

That's my on the matter. Frankly, I'm glad I live in a society where we are encouraged to be the best we can be and we are allowed to have choices on how we wish to live. That's as much as I'm going to say on the matter.

Agreed. Nothing wrong with the diversity we see today in people's lifestyle choices. Making residents want to do something that benefits the city will create a happier city, and this indeed should be the focus.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Ah, yes, all those wrecking, exploding, passenger trains in North America.



Also good words to describe most commuter auto traffic.

I don't know what you drive but I certainly enjoy the comfort of my heated or air conditioned car with big comfy seat and pleasant music of my choice. It goes on my schedule without waiting in hot or very cold weather. I don't have to hold any packages as they are safely stowed in the trunk About the only thing missing is a cocktail but of course that can't be.

Now how does that stack up to your train?

[cptstubing]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

I don't know what you drive but I certainly enjoy the comfort of my heated or air conditioned car with big comfy seat and pleasant music of my choice. It goes on my schedule without waiting in hot or very cold weather. I don't have to hold any packages as they are safely stowed in the trunk About the only thing missing is a cocktail but of course that can't be.

Now how does that stack up to your train?

I doubt Uhuniau was serious.
I don't own a train so I can't compare.

[portapetey]

This continues to go well.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by portapetey

This continues to go well.

Eh, when there's this many opinions back and forth, deviations and unique interpretations are a fact of life.

I'm all in favour of reversing lanes on Bedford Highway, anything to make that road move. Of all the projects that will remove cars from the Bedford Highway, rail has the most potential to move the highest number of people at one time. If even 1000 fewer cars were trying to funnel through at rush hour, traffic will flow easier. I think the traffic is so bad (and only going to get worse with nothing done) that it will require rail, reversing lanes, and even a well placed bus lane or queue jump to make a serious dent in the length and time spent in backups.

[cptstubing]

Originally Posted by curnhalio

Eh, when there's this many opinions back and forth, deviations and unique interpretations are a fact of life.

I'm all in favour of reversing lanes on Bedford Highway, anything to make that road move. Of all the projects that will remove cars from the Bedford Highway, rail has the most potential to move the highest number of people at one time. If even 1000 fewer cars were trying to funnel through at rush hour, traffic will flow easier. I think the traffic is so bad (and only going to get worse with nothing done) that it will require rail, reversing lanes, and even a well placed bus lane or queue jump to make a serious dent in the length and time spent in backups.

Agreed with everything you've touched on.
What would you say to the 'do nothing option'?

We wait until some sort of innovation takes place (technology solves all of our problems, right?). Self driving cars will eliminate all of the traffic issues we experience, with no need to adjust our infrastructure. Except for the few who refuse to let the vehicle drive itself.

Municipal government may decide to introduce legislation to restrict 'people controlled' vehicles to certain roads during busy commute times. Autonomous vehicles would be allowed anywhere on the peninsula at any time.

Still dreaming.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by cptstubing

What would you say to the 'do nothing option'?

That everyone who uses the BH daily should all have cars as comfortable and enjoyable as ILoveHalifax's. Because it's gonna be a long, long grind to/from work. Everyday.

There is a plan afoot to create reversing bus lanes from Seton Rd up to the Fairview overpass, in conjunction with the Motherhouse redevelopment and broader plans to use that area as a major transit corridor for peak-hour services.

If that falls through, and the rail option doesn't take off, then we're left facing the prospect of building overhead bus lanes over top of the roadway, or else taking the bus through here will become completely pointless.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by cptstubing

Agreed with everything you've touched on.
What would you say to the 'do nothing option'?

We wait until some sort of innovation takes place (technology solves all of our problems, right?). Self driving cars will eliminate all of the traffic issues we experience, with no need to adjust our infrastructure. Except for the few who refuse to let the vehicle drive itself.

Municipal government may decide to introduce legislation to restrict 'people controlled' vehicles to certain roads during busy commute times. Autonomous vehicles would be allowed anywhere on the peninsula at any time.

Still dreaming.

Yikes! Autonomous vehicles are going to solve our traffic problems? They have a long way to go before we can ever imagine this even being a possibility. Even then, they are being designed to work as individual units - i.e. there will be no central control to coordinate all the vehicles in an area to follow a particular traffic pattern. Their programming will be reactionary, which means mimicking human driving patterns, while theoretically eliminating human error from the driving process.

They will still break down, they currently are useless in snow condtions, etc. etc. Not to mention what happens if they suffer a widespread software glitch or hacking (God help us...). Give them another 50 years and they may have the bugs worked out.

If the numbers of them on the road stay the same or increase, then I predict our traffic problems will increase regardless of whether the vehicles are autonomous or not.

There are only 2 real solutions: increase road capacity or increase transit capacity. (OK, 3: make it possible for more people to work from home).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It's important not to be condescending about suburban communities or imply that their residents have made the wrong choice--they've just made a sort of default choice, and if advocate of density and urbanism want to sell more people on that pattern of development, we have to be careful to be seen as criticizing development patterns, not people (or, in a tricky rhetorical balancing act, their communities, even if said communities are exactly what we find undesirable.)

But, on a forum like this, I agree there's no reason to pretend that all planning patterns are equally valid. Bluntly, we need more communities that look like the peninsula and central Dartmouth, and fewer that look like Fall River and Enfield and the like. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

I totally agree and actually I generally wouldn't place most of the onus for individual transportation choices directly on the individual. We live with a society and people will choose whatever form of transportation that is the best combination of practical and affordable based on how that society is operated. And planning is exactly what it comes down to. When it's planned in a way that we legislate car access into every development and other forms of transportation are only included when we feel there's high enough demand or they "pay off" then this is going to direct people's choice. Private car access is considered "essential" so even if (especially if) it isn't considered practical to provide transit access or to make it walkable, providing auto-access and parking is considered automatic and non-negotiable.

Therefore, the result is that having a car means you can fairly easily reach any place any time, whereas with other forms of transportation you can only reach some places at some times or at best most places most times. It isn't because having a car is an inherent form of personal freedom and mobility; it's because we've designed our society in such a way to give car owners a greater degree of freedom and mobility - at the expense of other people. So naturally anyone who can afford it is basically forced to choose that option.

We have the choice to change this and to give easier transportation access to people using more efficient forms of transportation. And doing so isn't in any way taking away or reducing personal freedom. People will still have the choice to use whatever method of transportation they want and some places will still be easier to access with one form of transportation than another. It will require both building different forms of infrastructure and changing development patterns to match (such as increasing density).

Some people seem to have strange and totally mistaken ideas that suggest planning in a way that favours one mode of transportation as opposed to another is somehow akin to dictatorship or social engineering. In reality, living together in society requires planning and a certain degree of coordination regardless of how the governing body is organized. A dictatorship tells people what to do based on a single person or small group's whims. In our society it's up to elected officials to plan in a way that balances public preferences with practical constraints such as economics. They have to realize that we can only do what our society can physically afford in the long term and recognize that when something has been done a certain way for a long time and people have become accustomed to it, many will resist change due to simply inertia regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of each option. Change is more difficult (in the short term) than the status quo. The elected leaders can make their best effort to lead society in the direction they've determined is best, but cannot force it as the public is ultimately in control through elections.

But elections cannot change the physical realities of the world around us. Things that are too expensive to maintain are still going to be too costly whether or not civic leaders try to steer society in s better direction or not. Ultimately we are dictated to by the physical world around is. Shooting the messenger isn't going to change this.