Joint Regional Transportation Agency

[MonctonRad]

Just throwing this out there for discussion purposes.

• Video Link

FWIW, I think the Stadtbahn model makes sense for the peninsula, and along Bedford Basin to Bedford itself, and, perhaps by underwater tunnel to areas in Dartmouth lying within the Circumferential Highway, and to Dartmouth Crossing and Burnside, with a connector back to Bedford. The Stadtbahn could be tunnelled in the DT core of Halifax and Dartmouth, but above ground elsewhere.

Areas of HRM outside this core area can be served by bus. I still think there needs to be a component of regional heavy rail along corridors to YHZ/Enfield/Truro and to the Windsor/Wolfville/Kentville area. This might also make sense down towards Bridgewater at some point too.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

It's worth noting that the recent insane population growth has backed off to less than 15,000 per year province-wide. If it doesn't pick up again, it'll take over 60 years to double.

Just going from the premier’s plan. No idea whether it will actually happen.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Just throwing this out there for discussion purposes.

• Video Link

FWIW, I think the Stadtbahn model makes sense for the peninsula, and along Bedford Basin to Bedford itself, and, perhaps by underwater tunnel to areas in Dartmouth lying within the Circumferential Highway, and to Dartmouth Crossing and Burnside, with a connector back to Bedford. The Stadtbahn could be tunnelled in the DT core of Halifax and Dartmouth, but above ground elsewhere.

Areas of HRM outside this core area can be served by bus. I still think there needs to be a component of regional heavy rail along corridors to YHZ/Enfield/Truro and to the Windsor/Wolfville/Kentville area. This might also make sense down towards Bridgewater at some point too.

While an underharbour tunnel would be awesome, it would slash the cost by hundreds of millions to just make a lane on the MacDonald into a dedicated track. Even though it would be a single track service both directions it wouldn't be an issue. Since the distance across the bridge is about 1.5km, an average vehicle speed of 60km/h (aka 1km per min) would allow a full crossing every 1.5 minutes so one could cross in each direction every 3 min. We could reduce it to every 5 min per direction to allow a bit of padding. So say, two 28m light rail vehicles - about the length of a TTC streetcar - combined to make a train running at 12 per hour would have a capacity of over 3k per hour per direction. Much more than the lane can carry with mixed traffic.

Such a 56m long train is over 3x longer than the 18m articulated buses used on routes line the #1. And at double the frequency it means the new LRT would have 6x the cross-harbour capacity of route #1. Around twice the combined capacity of all the routes that currently cross the bridge. I know some people would complain about the bridge returning to dual road lanes but it was like that for decades and the newer arrangement would be higher overall capacity so it would be fine.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

While an underharbour tunnel would be awesome, it would slash the cost by hundreds of millions to just make a lane on the MacDonald into a dedicated track. Even though it would be a single track service both directions it wouldn't be an issue. Since the distance across the bridge is about 1.5km, an average vehicle speed of 60km/h (aka 1km per min) would allow a full crossing every 1.5 minutes so one could cross in each direction every 3 min.

Hopefully if and when the MacKay replacement happens this will be part of the planning. The MacKay should have more lanes for vehicle traffic and should be the main car route while the Macdonald could be bike/pedestrian and 2 light rail lanes with 1 reversing lane for mixed traffic.

Halifax doesn't really need high capacity transit for hundreds of thousands of daily passengers or very high speeds for people to travel 30 km or more. Medium-speed, reliable, high frequency transit that gets past the bottlenecks and gets people around the peninsula would be very well used. Something in the streetcar or LRT range that isn't stuck waiting for cars and traffic lights.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Hopefully if and when the MacKay replacement happens this will be part of the planning. The MacKay should have more lanes for vehicle traffic and should be the main car route while the Macdonald could be bike/pedestrian and 2 light rail lanes with 1 reversing lane for mixed traffic.

That would cripple traffic flow just because of the northern location of the MacKay or its replacement and the poor road infrastructure on the Halifax side serving it, which even with the redevelopment plans for the Windsor St Exchg seems condemned to be perpetually inadequate. The need for a new bridge has never been more apparent and plans for a southern crossing that were originally released and then shouted down by the usual naysayers back in '08 need to start moving forward. Only then can the obsolete Macdonald be considered for transit purposes which it could then be devoted to completely.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That would cripple traffic flow just because of the northern location of the MacKay or its replacement and the poor road infrastructure on the Halifax side serving it, which even with the redevelopment plans for the Windsor St Exchg seems condemned to be perpetually inadequate. The need for a new bridge has never been more apparent and plans for a southern crossing that were originally released and then shouted down by the usual naysayers back in '08 need to start moving forward. Only then can the obsolete Macdonald be considered for transit purposes which it could then be devoted to completely.

I have to agree. One only has to look back and recall the times in recent years when the Macdonald has been closed during weekdays… traffic was completely snarled, and that was before the massive influx of new residents that have the current network busier than I’ve ever seen it.

A new crossing off the 111 would be able to handle the traffic from the southern parts of the cities and allow the Macdonald to be completely switched to transit, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Heck, you could even put a transit stop in the middle of the bridge, next to a newly constructed observation deck, and make it a tourist destination.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That would cripple traffic flow just because of the northern location of the MacKay or its replacement and the poor road infrastructure on the Halifax side serving it, which even with the redevelopment plans for the Windsor St Exchg seems condemned to be perpetually inadequate. The need for a new bridge has never been more apparent and plans for a southern crossing that were originally released and then shouted down by the usual naysayers back in '08 need to start moving forward. Only then can the obsolete Macdonald be considered for transit purposes which it could then be devoted to completely.

By "more lanes" on the MacKay I meant a 6-8 lane corridor running from the 102 to the Dartmouth side. I agree making the bridge wider and doing nothing else is not so useful as there are other bottlenecks.

If there were fast and convenient transit running across town and over the Macdonald it would be less important to have mixed vehicle traffic over that bridge than it is currently. And while it's possible and maybe desirable to build a better freeway-like corridor by the MacKay that doesn't seem desirable or practical for the Macdonald. That inner area should probably be focused on modes other than cars.

[LikesBikes]

It's too bad North Street is as narrow as it is, and not a boulevard street that can accommodate seperate car, bike and transit lanes. As long as North is as narrow as it is (which I can't see ever changing) the MacDonald will always be severely handicapped.

[terrynorthend]

There's no way by the time they actually replace the McKay they won't need another crossing. Just replacing one bridge for an extra lane or two isn't enough.

I do like the idea of connecting the McKay to the 102, perhaps via a cut and cover tunnel under Joe Howe. I do however cry to myself everytime I think about all this work ahead, and just how messed traffic will be while construction happens.

[ILoveHalifax]

Heck, you could even put a transit stop in the middle of the bridge, next to a newly constructed observation deck, and make it a tourist destination.[/QUOTE]

Or a great place for jumping off

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Or a great place for jumping off

No more so than it already is.

What it isn’t currently, is a place that is inviting for pedestrians to go to enjoy the view, which is actually quite nice. Just a thought that came to me while imagining the bridge as transit-oriented… why not take advantage of the location and build a modest observation platform (with appropriate safety fencing as already required) and add a transit stop for visitors or locals to enjoy the view?

I’m silly in that I like to imagine Halifax having nice things for people to enjoy.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

It's too bad North Street is as narrow as it is, and not a boulevard street that can accommodate seperate car, bike and transit lanes. As long as North is as narrow as it is (which I can't see ever changing) the MacDonald will always be severely handicapped.

In the bird's eye view of Halifax from 1879 you can see that North Street already had some development. FWIW I tend to think it makes sense to embrace the way these older areas work and their pedestrian orientation, and it was a mistake in the 60's and 70's to destructively overhaul them to allow more cars. If you want to move more people around a dense area, transit is really the way to go. One light rail tunnel could move more people than many lanes of highway. There's still a need for some vehicles but they can be served by smaller surface streets.

The peninsula isn't that large. 2 streetcar routes (one north-south, one going from Dartmouth to Mumford or similar) with some underground sections to avoid traffic snarls would be a huge improvement.

[Nouvellecosse]

It sounds like it would be great if North St. was already wider to allow for a variety of modes without expensive tunneling or building demolitions. But in reality if it had already been multiple lanes you'd see the typical melt downs and fear mongering about traffic that you hear now if anyone suggested reducing general road lanes.

But fortunately, lots of cities have created rail transit tunnels so it isn't too lofty a goal when combined with some political will.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It sounds like it would be great if North St. was already wider to allow for a variety of modes without expensive tunneling or building demolitions. But in reality if it had already been multiple lanes you'd see the typical melt downs and fear mongering about traffic that you hear now if anyone suggested reducing general road lanes.

In reality, people would find something to argue or 'melt down' about regardless. If it had been multiple lanes built into some kind of expressway it would have been how the neighbourhood was decimated to serve "car-oriented transportation". Add bike lanes and it's a "war on the car". I like the idea of increased transit, but then there's crime and virus transmission...

Ya can't win one way or another... people will always find something to argue about.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It sounds like it would be great if North St. was already wider to allow for a variety of modes without expensive tunneling or building demolitions. But in reality if it had already been multiple lanes you'd see the typical melt downs and fear mongering about traffic that you hear now if anyone suggested reducing general road lanes.

I wonder how much throughput you really get from additional lanes when you consider the overhead of lane changes, intersections, and so on. I think it makes sense to widen if there's a small bottleneck or it has been planned, like on Bayers Road.

There's also a lot of room to adjust a street of a given width, like by adding reversing lanes or removing parking lanes. And then far more capacity is added with transit. One lane of bus traffic carries far more people than one lane of cars with 1-2 people each.

Then there's the issue of what has to be done with the cars and what kind of urban fabric you want in the end. The current North Street arrangement is better for that. It is kind of charming, and could be very charming with a bit more upkeep. The North End is very unique and just a small part of the metro area, so worth preserving.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

I really like the idea of having light rail utilizing the Macdonald Bridge and North Street. Perhaps from the bridge terminal to Mumford terminal with an intersecting Robie line could form the backbone of an LRT system? But in terms of capacity per vehicle crossings of the bridge it makes me wonder if a reduction in bridge tolls could become problematic for the Bridge Commission revenue.

[MolteN]

Can't think of any other place so might as well put it here.

With new council being sworn in soon, I'd like to see them continue with the integrated mobility plan for bicycles the rapid transit strategy BRT / ferry network. With the planned frequency of every ten minutes

More specifically I'd like these two pieces of the puzzle be used to eventually justify the funding for planning and construction light rail or automated metro.

The two products I'm interested in are Siemens S700 light railcars or Siemens Cityval. They could be powered by overhead 600v or 750v DC cables

To further elaborate, I'd like to see 40' & 60' articulated New Flyer Charge NC buses introduced while Novabus models are phased out.

I'd love for the electric ferry model to select be the Austal volta's 32v & 43v with a capacity of 200 & 350 respectively with a top speed of 70kph for up to 16 kilometers.

This also includes the city's plans to expand training and maintenance facilities for EV vehicles, hopefully this city council can improve staffing and work conditions with ATU 508.

This would all be of course easier to implement with an overhead transit agency.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I really like the idea of having light rail utilizing the Macdonald Bridge and North Street. Perhaps from the bridge terminal to Mumford terminal with an intersecting Robie line could form the backbone of an LRT system? But in terms of capacity per vehicle crossings of the bridge it makes me wonder if a reduction in bridge tolls could become problematic for the Bridge Commission revenue.

Perhaps it could reduce bridge tolls, but at the same time it would also greatly reduce the need for road surface maintenance since steel rails are more durable than asphalt or concrete. And considering all the buses that cross currently which do far more damage to roads than cars do and don't pay a toll, my guess is it would equal out.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I really like the idea of having light rail utilizing the Macdonald Bridge and North Street. Perhaps from the bridge terminal to Mumford terminal with an intersecting Robie line could form the backbone of an LRT system? But in terms of capacity per vehicle crossings of the bridge it makes me wonder if a reduction in bridge tolls could become problematic for the Bridge Commission revenue.

They could also widen the rail cut and construct a loop around the peninsula...even with one track originating from Halifax Shopping Centre and the trains would go back and forth on one track if necessary.

The rock taken from the rail cut widening could be placed as infill along the shores of Bedford basin to expand the CNR track corridor so that light rail can go to Bedford.

Then add two more lanes on the bicentennial highway for bus lanes or more tracks

[terrynorthend]

Our premier, in pre-election mode, has announced a bunch of major highway/transportation work around HRM today. These include redesigns/upgrades to interchange along the 102 at KLR, HPR, and Bedford (exits 2, 3, and 4a/b/c)
A 20km expansion(!) of the 102 from exit 0 to Bedford Commons. A new connector between the 101 and 102 in Hammonds Plains. And crucially, what may be our first real look at a light rail system.
Presumably this will.be all fleshed out in the upcoming JRTA report.