Rail-based Transit Discussion

[macgregor]

An open question:

- Although unfortunately the rail line to the south shore was pulled up and turned into trails, this line was long and windy.

- In the future hypothetical case of a commuter rail line to Bridgewater, would a line along the 103 (alongside or in the median) be a better route? It's shorter, but more hills.

[Hali87]

Commuter rail to Bridgewater doesn't really make sense to me, because not many people commute between Halifax and Bridgewater on a regular basis and it doesn't really make sense to make it more convenient for people to do so (as long as bus service is reinstated). There also isn't very much between Tantallon and Bridgewater, and the few very small towns in between (Chester, Mahone Bay, etc.) are very far apart relative to their populations. Even commuter rail to Tantallon would be a stretch in my opinion.

[someone123]

Commuter rail for that area makes little sense. All of Lunenburg county is about 50,000. Rail was popular in that region before they built the highway, but these days most people drive and the remaining market is too small to justify rail service.

MetroX is the right type of service for Tantallon and I think it is already running: http://www.halifax.ca/MetroTransit/d...etroX-FAQs.pdf

The real missing piece in Halifax is a good "backbone" to build the rest of the transit system around. A fast, high-frequency service like LRT would make it easy to get around to the most important areas on the peninsula and it would add a lot of value to other services like the ferries and express buses.

[resetcbu1]

Could any of these abandoned rail ROW be reclaimed for light rail seing as how they are already cleared , graded and packed?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by resetcbu1

Could any of these abandoned rail ROW be reclaimed for light rail seing as how they are already cleared , graded and packed?

The bicycle loonies would stage a riot.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by resetcbu1

Could any of these abandoned rail ROW be reclaimed for light rail seing as how they are already cleared , graded and packed?

Your a braver man than I if you think you can return these railbeds back to their rightful purpose.

Nobody would have the political will to take them back for the trains.

[Waye Mason]

The technical answer is "yes" though some of them, like the spur out the south shore past bayers lake is not really any good, it has a speed limit of 15-20kph because of the switchbacks.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

But from my perspective, building a short tunnel to connect the CBD to the railcut is the low hanging fruit, because it's a major concession to my desire to have a small metro system that runs underground on its entire route from downtown to Mumford before joining the rail corridor.

You mention things like busways, streetcars, terminal upgrades and commuter rail, but to me, those things are a bit of a dead end unless the downtown tunnel is built first. Commuter rail will not be desirable if it stops at the train station and people are forced to transfer to get to the CBD (as opposed to an underground platform under the CBD), busways would be relatively unnecessary if people had a fast rail connection to get them in and out of the peninsula (people could transfer to it at Mumford avoiding peninsular congestion), and upgrading terminals does little to improve the actual routes.

A solution would be to have LRT act as commuter rail "tram train" so that it could come off the rail cut right to the CBD using surface streets - as long as we could ensure it would not get mired in traffic. If there's a way to do this that allows the LRT/commuter train to glide all the way to Scotia Square without impediment, then the tunnel would be unnecessary.

As for streetcars, I'm not sure I see the point. Are our bus routes really that crowded that we need the extra capacity? If it's just about the reduction of noise and pollution, then trollybuses are a good alternative which I wholly support.

[resetcbu1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be cheaper to build new biking and walking paths and use the rail cuts for trains? As I see it, bike and walking paths could be built by cutting a small swath and leaving it at natural grade as opposed to the work involved in building new rail ROW's

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by resetcbu1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be cheaper to build new biking and walking paths and use the rail cuts for trains? As I see it, bike and walking paths could be built by cutting a small swath and leaving it at natural grade as opposed to the work involved in building new rail ROW's

Yes, refurbishment would be cheaper than building new ROWs in most cases.

However the rails to trails genie has been let out of the bottle. If you think that the owners of houses that back on the old RW cuts , cyclists and walkers will welcome trains back on those ROWs, well, its a dream.

If government had a backbone they'd force it through when/if the time came, but it would never happen, no matter how much it would benefit the majority over the VERY vocal minority.

[resetcbu1]

Originally Posted by scooby074

Yes, refurbishment would be cheaper than building new ROWs in most cases.

However the rails to trails genie has been let out of the bottle. If you think that the owners of houses that back on the old RW cuts , cyclists and walkers will welcome trains back on those ROWs, well, its a dream.

If government had a backbone they'd force it through when/if the time came, but it would never happen, no matter how much it would benefit the majority over the VERY vocal minority.

Haha , for sure....... I must have been dreaming to think any government would have the balls to stand up to any vocal minority , instead of supporting the silent mass.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by resetcbu1

Haha , for sure....... I must have been dreaming to think any government would have the balls to stand up to any vocal minority , instead of supporting the silent mass.

Sad but true I'm afraid... sad but true

[19200]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be cheaper to build new biking and walking paths and use the rail cuts for trains? As I see it, bike and walking paths could be built by cutting a small swath and leaving it at natural grade as opposed to the work involved in building new rail ROW's

The Chester Sub right of way was 100' wide. It was perfectly possible to have both commuter rail, and walking/bike trails side by side. All that was needed was political will and forthought.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by 19200

The Chester Sub right of way was 100' wide. It was perfectly possible to have both commuter rail, and walking/bike trails side by side. All that was needed was political will and forthought.

That and the Bedford route could have been developed and made a lot of impact on traffic congestion on the 102/103 highways. Even operating at peak times on weekdays only, they would've had a great level of service I'm sure.

But the decision to use the Chester sub for a regional pathway has now screwed that idea. There is no ROW left near Superstore, it was absorbed into different parcels near there. So scratch that idea...

[halifaxboyns]

Having been to Vancouver recently to see Madonna, I had a chance to take the Canada Line and ventured out to Metrotown. Also used a number of other articulated buses and some of the articulated buses with the overhead wire. Now that I'm back in Calgary, it got me thinking about rail systems for HRM.

Vancouver's Skytrain use two different models - the Bombardier with power systems being provided by a motor under the train. The Hyundai trains used on the Canada Line are a 3rd rail system like typical subways. Here in Calgary (and in Edmonton) - we use a Siemens trains which have the overhead wire.

The advantage of the trains in Calgary and Edmonton is that they can easily be incorporated into a street and mixed traffic at grade, which means that if a line were to go down Portland Street (for example) - it could be put on either side of the street or in the middle (in it's own ROW) and then have a simple at grade crossing with signals. The trains used by Vancouver, can't do that because the 3rd rail would prevent it (so would the electrified pad along the bottom of the rail bed) so in the trail would have to be elevated, at grade in a separate ROW with road crossings either going over the ROW or the train going under or underground.

Considering HRM's history with transit strife - my preference in terms of a system for HRM would be that they pick the Bombardier trains because they are automated. This would give the advantage of the trains could continue if there was a transit strike (where as the Siemens wouldn't because they need an operator). Plus the automated trains have the unique ability to run with very close headways, so as the city grows and the system is more intensely used the headways can be reduced (along with additional cars).

I know we've had some discussion about a rail system and some types - this is my preference but I'm curious how others feel. I'm talking about an LRT system that would be more diversified in routes beyond what regional rail could accomplish.

[someone123]

I think the original Bombardier SkyTrain is an excellent transit technology. It has a much lower operating cost because of the automation, the trains can accelerate very quickly (they limit them for comfort), and the elevated track is cheaper to build than subway. Vancouver did very well with the SkyTrain system. In only 30 years and with a moderate capital outlay, as far as rapid transit goes, the metro area has gotten pretty good coverage and rapid transit service.

In Halifax the operating cost advantages could be even larger because the trains would be shorter and therefore the ratio of drivers to passengers would have to be higher. In a fully automated system it would be possible to have lots of little trains and higher frequencies.

Electrified transit also brings some huge advantages, although Vancouver is particularly lucky because of BC's hydro resources. NS might have hydro power soon too though. It's much more secure and cheaper than diesel and it is environmentally friendly, not just from the point of view of the planet and climate change but in terms of street level emissions.

Electric vehicles tend to be much quieter too. The electric buses in Vancouver are much, much nicer than the diesel buses. If you are on a street like Commercial or Hastings that is mostly electrics you really notice the difference. The diesels are ear-splitting but the electrics just make a low whirring noise and a bit of clacking.

[Hali87]

HRM staff refuse to explore LRT as an option in RP+5:

In response to "consider light rail transit":

This request is outside of the scope of this review. Regional Council recently requested the preparation of a Commuter Rail Feasibility Study to evaluate the potential for Commuter Rail. There are no plans to consider Light Rail at this time, as it is much more costly than Commuter Rail which takes advantage of surplus capacity on existing tracks. As track, vehicle and signalling technology continues to develop, options may arise in the future for in-street extensions from existing railheads to strategic destinations. In the meantime, staff will further explore the feasibility and cost of commuter rail on existing tracks.

Source

Contrast that to this, from Metro Transit's current 5-year plan (active as of 2009):

Although beyond the scope of this plan, the consulting team envisions that, in the longer term, within 10 to 15 years, Metro Transit’s network of bus routes and ferries will need to be augmented by a network of higher order transit services, specifically, Light Rail Transit, in order to provide the needed capacity to handle higher ridership levels.

Source

[someone123]

HRM staff still cite recommendations from the 2006 regional plan in this report but what they don't mention is that many of the projections in that report are already inaccurate. When the shipbuilding contract is in full gear reality may diverge even farther from the projections.

I think planners often have a false sense of how well demographic changes can be predicted. Even if birth and death rates are fairly consistent, demographic change is increasingly dominated by migration, which is determined by economic factors that are notoriously difficult to predict. Just look at the very focused waves of immigration to particular cities (driven by changes happening in a totally different part of the planet), the rise of certain companies, changes in the price of commodities, and the size of some government contracts.

Another important piece to consider is the amount of lead time necessary for something like LRT or a third bridge crossing. The Port Mann bridge in Vancouver is not yet open and the government decided to proceed with it in 2006. It was probably considered as a viable option for about 10-20 years before it became a reality. Calgary's planning documents said "yes" to LRT in 1967 and it did not open until 1981. Both Vancouver and Calgary tend to move dramatically faster than Halifax.

The fact that HRM staff are not even entertaining rail transit or really any substantial new transportation infrastructure means the studies might not happen for 5 years and the infrastructure might not be a possibility for 10-15 years.

If the growth rate of the city continues to increase it will be awfully difficult for the municipality to provide the new infrastructure needed to move people around. With the way things are going I'm not even sure that the current level of growth in Halifax will be well-supported.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another important piece to consider is the amount of lead time necessary for something like LRT or a third bridge crossing. The Port Mann bridge in Vancouver is not yet open and the government decided to proceed with it in 2006. It was probably considered as a viable option for about 10-20 years before it became a reality. Calgary's planning documents said "yes" to LRT in 1967 and it did not open until 1981. Both Vancouver and Calgary tend to move dramatically faster than Halifax.

The fact that HRM staff are not even entertaining rail transit or really any substantial new transportation infrastructure means the studies might not happen for 5 years and the infrastructure might not be a possibility for 10-15 years.

If the growth rate of the city continues to increase it will be awfully difficult for the municipality to provide the new infrastructure needed to move people around. With the way things are going I'm not even sure that the current level of growth in Halifax will be well-supported.

This problem is exacerbated by pandering on the part of politicians and those running for office against the need for any real change in infrastructure. Mike Savage is against any new bridges for example, a blatant attempt to cater to the Flat Earth Society bunch who think that nothing will ever change around here. Sadly, it is one of the few concrete positions he has taken on anything. Several other candidates take the same view for the same reasons. This kind of thinking is very damaging to the city. You cannot simply throw more buses at the problem an expect anything to improve. But as long as the Ecology Action Center types manage to control the agenda we will be held back.

[someone123]

Part of the problem seems to be that the public debate is basically "should we build new infrastructure?" or "do we want growth?". Growth is going to happen regardless of what special interests want and new infrastructure is needed. The real planning question now is "how do we get 500,000 people where they want to go?"

I understand why there isn't a lot of support for road widening but there has to be some plan to add capacity. There is no viable plan because road building projects are unpopular and city staff seem to be against the more ambitious levels of transit development necessary to compensate.