Rail-based Transit Discussion

[HarbingerDe]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

This is great, though if we’re at the "feasibility study" stage I wouldn’t realistically expect to actually step inside a train until well into the 2030s. If the province would just fund the relatively inexpensive BRT system we could get some fast transit on corridors that could later be converted to rail.

Well in to the 2030s is HIGHLY optimistic already. By comparison to other Canadian light rail projects, it takes about 10 years from first construction to first passengers on a light rail line.

This could likely be faster depending how the construction is phased, but 10 years is a realistic timeline. So if we had a complete design study, project plan, allocated funding, and began TODAY, we probably wouldn't see first ridership until around 2030-2034

If they put the rush on this feasibility study, we could expect the line to be running in the late 2030s or very early 2040s.

[LikesBikes]

The issue with the freeway system is that people don't live and work off the freeway, so as soon as it merges with the regular road network there's a massive bottleneck and traffic jam. More highways will just get people to join in these traffic jams quicker, but I don't see how the traffic will be improved in any significant way.

For the transit piece, that feels like something they threw in there to make it look like they're doing something. The highway seems like a crappy alignment to have there would be zero walkshed and limited opportunities for new development as nobody wants to live near a highway. Plus, at the presentation they posted on youtube it sounded like the planners were pretty against rail for "reasons".

[Reesor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_rapid_transit - LRT in Kitchener/Waterloo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tide_(light_rail_network) - LRT in Norfolk, Virginia

One thing that seems consistent about mid-size cities and their light rail is that they are grids. It is much harder to navigate an LRT across a harbour or through Bayers Road, Windsor St Exchange etc.

I think Halifax's biggest problem is that they have a bunch of chopped up bus lanes, but no continuous routes through high-use corridors. I live in Sackville and work in the Dockyard. If I take an express bus, I'm stuck in traffic on the magazine hill. Then I get a short bus lane on Windmill up to Akerley and then am stuck in traffic again. Then a short bus lane by Starbucks/McDonalds, then traffic again. More traffic through the tools and across the MacKay until I'm on Barrington again. Then a short bus lane until Devonshire then stuck at the Niobe Gate/Devonshire intersection. Then another short bus lane then stuck yet again at North. Same with all major corridors (Herring Cove, Portland, Lacewood, Mic Mac Mall / Woodland Ave....). The city needs to concentrate on high-frequency corridors and make a path unabated from start to finish. Something it seems like the idea of BRT would accomplish, but is easier said than done. How do you get a bus across the harbour with a dedicated bus lane without crippling car flow? Using the reversing lane on the MacDonald seems logical, but you have to get to the MacDonald through the tolls first, which brings up the corridor issue again.

There are gotchas everywhere preventing dedicated bus lanes from start to finish. How do you add a lane to Victoria Road after Windmill going up to the Highway 111 cloverleaf without re-doing that entire bridge? Same with the approach to the tolls. How do you add a lane to Barrington St under the MacKay without re-doing that entire bridge? Will the city even entertain that with a new "new bridge" threatening to adjust how that entire section of the city is routed? How do you add a lane at Barrington and North to prevent buses from getting stuck there? How do you make a bus lane from Penhorn Mall down Portland St to Alderney without removing houses?

Having bus lanes is better than not having them. But until you have a start-to-finish solution that prevents buses from being stuck in the same traffic as cars, people are just going to drive. Buses being free isn't the answer. People know busing it is less expensive on gas, tires, car wear-and-tear etc. Time in traffic is the biggest incentive. Rather than sit on the Magazine, people drive to Fall River and back in the 118, using up more gas, just to save time. Find a way to cut down that time, and folks will even pay to do it.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by HarbingerDe

Well in to the 2030s is HIGHLY optimistic already. By comparison to other Canadian light rail projects, it takes about 10 years from first construction to first passengers on a light rail line.

This could likely be faster depending how the construction is phased, but 10 years is a realistic timeline. So if we had a complete design study, project plan, allocated funding, and began TODAY, we probably wouldn't see first ridership until around 2030-2034

If they put the rush on this feasibility study, we could expect the line to be running in the late 2030s or very early 2040s.

Exactly. We need to implement something much faster. That something is BRT.

[bartekci]

We can build BRT with LRT in mind. Create the spine, get the dedicated lanes going, build out some of the platforms, and when we can actually do it, build the LRT.

I am in full agreement that we need something now, not 15 years from now. Higher order transit is needed but we can't sit and wait on a 5 year feasibility study to wrap up so we can start a 10 year construction project (if we're lucky)

I am really losing hope for BRT lately and this announcement has further diminished that.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by fatscat

We can build BRT with LRT in mind. Create the spine, get the dedicated lanes going, build out some of the platforms, and when we can actually do it, build the LRT.

I am in full agreement that we need something now, not 15 years from now. Higher order transit is needed but we can't sit and wait on a 5 year feasibility study to wrap up so we can start a 10 year construction project (if we're lucky)

I am really losing hope for BRT lately and this announcement has further diminished that.

If the JRTA doesn’t include funding for it or something like it, the city is just going to have figure out a way to go it alone and pay for it. Or we’ll just never get it.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

If the JRTA doesn’t include funding for it or something like it, the city is just going to have figure out a way to go it alone and pay for it. Or we’ll just never get it.

The issue is, that's exactly how Metro Transit operates currently. It's produced a disjointed system and mixed results. Something has to be done as traffic is only going to get worse. It should be BRT when looking at it pragmatically as the plans are there and it could be up and running quickly.

My question is, at what point of growth do we get aspirational and stop being reactionary? The dreamer in me wants rail, as its ability to draw people to public transit is much greater than buses. Many people won't get on a public bus but see trains as more civilized and reliable.

It's been frustrating watching the province post large surpluses, while this important process seems to be just getting into gear. Conveniently, at the end of their first mandate, in an election year. Maybe, its the former military town aspect or a pinch penny province but it always feels like civic improvements are done on a triage basis in Halifax and the city is a lowly corporal next to the rural officers.

[MolteN]

While I'm uncertain what corridor the study will recommend for light rail. An automated light metro line would be a great starter to a wider metro network as an alternative.

But realistically they'll probably recommend Alstom Flexity freedom light rail vehicles since it's already manufactured in Kingston & Thunder Bay.

My hypothetical JRTA

BRT network that serves every region of HRM with replacement Novabus 40' & 60' articulated EV buses. Incorporate the rapid transit strategy four BRT corridors but stretch them further out from the core.

Capacity of 75 to 112 people targeted frequency of every 10-90 minutes based on region.

Austal Volta EV ferry fleet for the planned terminals in Mill cove, Larry uteck, shannon park & woodside + alderney + downtown hub.

Capacity of 200 people top speed of 70kph with a range of 26 kilometres targeted frequency of every 10-20 minutes

Siemens CityVAL automated light metro network, largely on elevated concrete viaducts.

Three car trainsets capacity of 237, targeted frequency of every 3-5 minutes. The frequency could reliably go as low as 90 seconds apart based on demand since it's automated.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

The issue with the freeway system is that people don't live and work off the freeway, so as soon as it merges with the regular road network there's a massive bottleneck and traffic jam. More highways will just get people to join in these traffic jams quicker, but I don't see how the traffic will be improved in any significant way.

The problem is, as things are currently that section of the 102 is at capacity almost the entire way during rush hours, but also very busy in non-rush hour times. This creates a driving situation that is more difficult to negotiate at 100+ km/h, which means that all it takes is for somebody to make a small mistake and the result is traffic backed up for kms, followed by people exiting the highway in hopes of bypassing the crash scene, who just end up causing more traffic jams in areas that usually flow reasonably well when most of the traffic load is being taken up by the highway. Not to mention the obvious safety issues with regular collisions happening at these speeds. More highway capacity won't remove the other bottlenecks, but not everybody is going there - the fact that the highway moves bumper to bumper at speed, until somebody crashes and backs everything up, indicates that increased capacity will only make the situation better for everybody.

BRT is great, but if it takes up entire traffic lanes one has to wonder if it will remove enough drivers from the road to compensate for the traffic capacity that it is removing. I think theoretically, the answer is yes, but I'm not sure how that stacks up against traffic volume that is naturally increasing because of a continually increasing population?

This is why I like the ferry project. It uses its own ROW (the harbour), so transit capacity can be added that doesn't add to the traffic problem. The downside is that unlike LRT, you can't add a dozen stops en route to make it a walkable option for people all over the city - the docking process would add too much time for it to be practical and efficient. But it's a good start.

What I like about LRT, is that you can run parts of it underground or elevated to avoid having to compete with vehicle traffic, and not be a slave to the inevitable bottlenecks that will affect buses. Stops can be made quickly and efficiently and regular service can be guaranteed. This makes it an attractive option for people who would normally choose a car as the best option, as it avoids the uncertainty of getting caught in a traffic jam and removes the stress of driving in rush hour traffic. And, trains just seem to be a nicer ride than buses - smoother and a better experience overall.

Which is why I bristle a little bit over the this-or-that mentality that I hear so often. We need all of the above... car traffic, buses, ferries, LRT, and yes, bicycle lanes, to move people around and let us all be able to live a higher quality life while we go about our day-to-day business. The more options the better.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

BRT is great, but if it takes up entire traffic lanes one has to wonder if it will remove enough drivers from the road to compensate for the traffic capacity that it is removing. I think theoretically, the answer is yes, but I'm not sure how that stacks up against traffic volume that is naturally increasing because of a continually increasing population?

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but my read of the BRT plan is that it will create new transit-priority lanes/ROWs, rather than repurpose existing traffic lanes.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but my read of the BRT plan is that it will create new transit-priority lanes/ROWs, rather than repurpose existing traffic lanes.

That sounds good. Is it possible to do with existing layouts? Also how about being susceptible to existing bottlenecks when having to pass through busy intersections? Is that not an issue?

Why don’t all cities that have LRT just use buses and save all that time and money?

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Intersections in general, auto accidents at intersections, our bridges or anywhere there is not a dedicated lane, weather, passenger comfort, etc. all make BRT the poor second (or third) cousin of LRT. Is the proposed BRT system better than what we have now? Sure! But then what wouldn't be? I'm hoping the JRTA report is an unprecedented message of support and belief in the future of our region. For that to be true for me, I would need to see a MacKay replacement and LRT in our near future. The election will be called today and be history prior to the release of the JRTA report. It doesn't bode well.

[Keith P.]

It is, as the saying goes, a wicked problem.

I could see a BRT route from, say Fall River to the peninsula, or Tantallon, or even just Bedford-Sackville. Without a new harbour crossing I don't see any help for Dartmouth commuters unfortunately. But once you hit the peninsula I don't see any feasible way to get those passengers to the DT core without something either very expensive or having the same problems Transit currently does. I suppose you could cap the rail cut somehow but aside from that I'm drawing a blank.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That sounds good. Is it possible to do with existing layouts? Also how about being susceptible to existing bottlenecks when having to pass through busy intersections? Is that not an issue?

Why don’t all cities that have LRT just use buses and save all that time and money?

That’s why the city is acquiring land and buildings for some strategic widening (such as at the bottleneck around Robie and North).

As to the latter question, LRT is higher capacity. Once demand is sufficient, rail makes sense. But lots of cities use BRT as an interim step (Ottawa being a Canadian example).

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

To date I've not seen or read anything to suggest that the HRM BRT system will include grade separated routes such as the Ottawa Transitway has. If our BRT system is to have overpasses and underpasses etc. then Halifax Transit should highlight this as it would likely garner much support.

[Nouvellecosse]

After the Ottawa experience I'm skeptical of using BRT as an interim measure with an intention to later convert to LRT. If a system is busy enough to warrant the upgrade, the last thing you want is to close it long enough for all of that work to be done. You'd inconvenience riders who have come to depend on it, drive down ridership and create even greater traffic chaos than what would result from construction otherwise.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

That’s why the city is acquiring land and buildings for some strategic widening (such as at the bottleneck around Robie and North).

As to the latter question, LRT is higher capacity. Once demand is sufficient, rail makes sense. But lots of cities use BRT as an interim step (Ottawa being a Canadian example).

I didn't read through the plan, but yeah I realize that they were acquiring land in some spots, like Robie as you mention and as I've read here, but as Reesor mentioned earlier in this thread, there are a lot of areas where bus lanes are non-continuous and the bus is held up by traffic. It just seems like there a lot of sketchy areas to be able guarantee quick, reliable bus service. In your opinion, do you think the city will actually pull off super quick, reliable BRT service? I'm skeptical, but would be happy to be proven wrong.

The spirit of my previous post was that grade-separated LRT that didn't use any existing roadway, while expensive, would be much easier to run efficient, consistent transit vs buses. As politics go, especially Halifax politics, you know that using BRT as an interim step just kicks the LRT can down the road, meaning it won't be started until we absolutely need it, so not 10 years away but more like 20 or 30, or... never? IMHO we would be better off just biting the bullet and go directly to LRT planning, budgeting and construction, meanwhile relying on upgraded bus service and the new ferry system to get us through the 10 - 15 years before we actually have running trains.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

That’s why the city is acquiring land and buildings for some strategic widening (such as at the bottleneck around Robie and North).

I ‘d like to know more about this. The 4 parcels there consist of 2 commercial uses and two residential ones, one of which may have some historical significance. I presume HRM is targeting the car lot and gas station sites on the north side. They need to do more than that though.

North St is now an even worse bottleneck than it has been in the past. The last few times I’ve used it, traffic has been ridiculously heavy and just creeps along. The left turns at Creighton and at Windsor really back things up, as do pedestrian crossings at other intersections which back up right-turning traffic as well. The entire street is too narrow to allow vehicles to get around those that are stopped awaiting an opening to turn. I think the entire street will need to be widened at what surely would be a huge cost.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I ‘d like to know more about this.

Here's the map: https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/fil...P23-RobieStreetTransportationReserve.pdf

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Here's the map: https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/fil...P23-RobieStreetTransportationReserve.pdf

So I assume this is still theoretical and that all those parcels have not been subdivided and purchased by HRM yet? Those rental properties on the south corners of Robie and North would likely have to go since they are hard up to the sidewalk.