Rail-based Transit Discussion

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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.

The idea is that the one with the grey vinyl siding will be torn down. The one with the green shingle siding will not be; it's just outside the required right-of-way, and is a newly designated heritage property (home of the first Black doctor in Halifax).

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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.

It's a piecemeal process. Basically the Transportation Reserve prohibits development in the identified area and then HRM works to negotiate to acquire those properties over time. HRM has a legislated time limit under the Halifax Charter (can't just prohibit development forever and not acquire the properties) so presumably at some point they may have to resort to eminent domain for properties where they can't come to a negotiated agreement.

If you look at property lines on Viewpoint you can see that some of the deals have already been made. A good example is on the former site of the Coastal Cafe.

[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.

Actually, haven't they already taken existing traffic lanes and converted them to bus-only? I'm thinking specifically of Robie between Young and Almon, and Barrington bridge-to-bridge.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Actually, haven't they already taken existing traffic lanes and converted them to bus-only? I'm thinking specifically of Robie between Young and Almon, and Barrington bridge-to-bridge.

Yes, there are several stretches of former multilane streets where they have degraded them back to single lanes in each direction with largely unused special-purpose lanes instead.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yes, there are several stretches of former multilane streets where they have degraded them back to single lanes in each direction with largely unused special-purpose lanes instead.

Which I believe validates my original statement, unless the City’s plan is to further widen those stretches (if possible) and reinstate traffic lanes that were taken away.

Before the forum urbanists go all half-axed, I’m not saying that we should never exchange traffic lanes for transit priority, just going back to my original point that it should be done with consideration for our increasing population, and that perhaps a majority of them are driving cars. The point I was making seemed to be shut down because Halifax says it’s not going to do it anymore, but here they already have.

[Keith P.]

I think part of the problem is that HRM will take something like that stretch of Robie that is 6 lanes wide as far as Almon heading southbound but not do anything to widen it beyond that, not only creating a bottleneck, but also not allowing Transit to operate efficiently. So you have both bad Transit and bad traffic. The same holds true for North St. If they had started working on fixing that in the ‘70s I suppose it would have been shut down by the screams of outrage from the usual suspects back then, but we are certainly paying the price now for those decades of inaction.

[ArchAficionado]

The way the whole peninsula of Halifax is laid out makes it a nightmare for effective car-centric transportation. The grid is simply too tight to meaningfully add road capacity in a lot of places without '70s style mass-demolition, which is untenable today and unwise in such a housing-constrained time.

The prime candidate for good higher-order transit, albeit the expensive candidate, is probably a combination of some BRT where possible in the short run, and LRT in the long run, built mostly on elevated guideways with select parts at-or-below grade (e.g. Barrington St cut-and-cover). I alluded to a plan I was working on to create an "educated layperson LRT proposal" (I'm a bridge engineer and train enthusiast with an interest in planning, so I know more than most but have no formal planning training - according to the cynicism of some on this forum perhaps that's a good thing). I intend to make that my winter project this year, and share it here when it's done.

[terrynorthend]

I look forward to seeing your project. I've always thought while driving the mess that is the Windsor Street Exchange how neat and efficiently an LRT on an elevated guideway or hanging rail transit could overfly the whole thing from Bedford Hwy to Kempt-Windsor and/or Barrington-McKay to Joe Howe and the 102.

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

The way the whole peninsula of Halifax is laid out makes it a nightmare for effective car-centric transportation. The grid is simply too tight to meaningfully add road capacity in a lot of places without '70s style mass-demolition, which is untenable today and unwise in such a housing-constrained time.

The prime candidate for good higher-order transit, albeit the expensive candidate, is probably a combination of some BRT where possible in the short run, and LRT in the long run, built mostly on elevated guideways with select parts at-or-below grade (e.g. Barrington St cut-and-cover). I alluded to a plan I was working on to create an "educated layperson LRT proposal" (I'm a bridge engineer and train enthusiast with an interest in planning, so I know more than most but have no formal planning training - according to the cynicism of some on this forum perhaps that's a good thing). I intend to make that my winter project this year, and share it here when it's done.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

The way the whole peninsula of Halifax is laid out makes it a nightmare for effective car-centric transportation. The grid is simply too tight to meaningfully add road capacity in a lot of places without '70s style mass-demolition, which is untenable today and unwise in such a housing-constrained time.

The prime candidate for good higher-order transit, albeit the expensive candidate, is probably a combination of some BRT where possible in the short run, and LRT in the long run, built mostly on elevated guideways with select parts at-or-below grade (e.g. Barrington St cut-and-cover). I alluded to a plan I was working on to create an "educated layperson LRT proposal" (I'm a bridge engineer and train enthusiast with an interest in planning, so I know more than most but have no formal planning training - according to the cynicism of some on this forum perhaps that's a good thing). I intend to make that my winter project this year, and share it here when it's done.

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

I look forward to seeing your project. I've always thought while driving the mess that is the Windsor Street Exchange how neat and efficiently an LRT on an elevated guideway or hanging rail transit could overfly the whole thing from Bedford Hwy to Kempt-Windsor and/or Barrington-McKay to Joe Howe and the 102.

Agreed and agreed!

Sometimes you have to pick the more expensive option because it’s the only one that really has a significant effect on the problem. Historically (well, in the past half-century), Halifax has chosen the cheapest option and we end up where we are now, always playing catch-up trying to fix the after effects of having not done enough in the past, or not looking far enough into the future.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

I look forward to seeing your project. I've always thought while driving the mess that is the Windsor Street Exchange how neat and efficiently an LRT on an elevated guideway or hanging rail transit could overfly the whole thing from Bedford Hwy to Kempt-Windsor and/or Barrington-McKay to Joe Howe and the 102.

I look forward to seeing his proposal too.

I am not a fan of BRT, but, I have a lot of time for LRT and heavy commuter rail. LRT, covered in the downtown, and, elevated elsewhere on the peninsula makes a lot of sense. In the off peninsular areas, LRT could be run at grade. Heavy commuter rail should be reserved for exurban/downtown commutes via the rail cut.

Any solution has to be multipronged (heavy passenger rail, LRT, trolleys, busses, fast ferries and, yes, even improved vehicular access to the core (new bridge anyone?) have to be factored into the equation.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

The way the whole peninsula of Halifax is laid out makes it a nightmare for effective car-centric transportation. The grid is simply too tight to meaningfully add road capacity in a lot of places without '70s style mass-demolition, which is untenable today and unwise in such a housing-constrained time.

The prime candidate for good higher-order transit, albeit the expensive candidate, is probably a combination of some BRT where possible in the short run, and LRT in the long run, built mostly on elevated guideways with select parts at-or-below grade (e.g. Barrington St cut-and-cover). I alluded to a plan I was working on to create an "educated layperson LRT proposal" (I'm a bridge engineer and train enthusiast with an interest in planning, so I know more than most but have no formal planning training - according to the cynicism of some on this forum perhaps that's a good thing). I intend to make that my winter project this year, and share it here when it's done.

The Docklands Light Rail in London comes to mind. It travels above neighbourhoods that are much more dense than Halifax. And it also tunnels under the Thames

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Summerville

The Docklands Light Rail in London comes to mind. It travels above neighbourhoods that are much more dense than Halifax. And it also tunnels under the Thames

The DRL is quite different in that the elevated sections mainly re-purposes historic stone and brick rail viaducts rather than new structures that would have NIMBY opposition. Plus London has had urban rail transport for upwards of 150 years and people are accustomed to it. And while there is a desire for historic preservation (which is actually supported by the re-purposing of historic viaducts), you don't have people demanding to have the city reject anything "big city" and an obsession with pretending to be a small town. I think those factors would make it very difficult to create new rail viaducts here in an urban setting.

I can see an elevated structure working well in some places however. Like the stretch above the Atlantic Forces parking strip by Valour Way. Or a structure above the rail tracks along Bedford Basin as that might be easier to fit than extra ground-level tracks. But not above city streets which isn't just something I fear others would oppose but also something I'd oppose myself in most cases.In London the viaducts don't tend to be above city streets except for bridges crossing the street.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

The way the whole peninsula of Halifax is laid out makes it a nightmare for effective car-centric transportation. The grid is simply too tight to meaningfully add road capacity in a lot of places without '70s style mass-demolition, which is untenable today and unwise in such a housing-constrained time.

The prime candidate for good higher-order transit, albeit the expensive candidate, is probably a combination of some BRT where possible in the short run, and LRT in the long run, built mostly on elevated guideways with select parts at-or-below grade (e.g. Barrington St cut-and-cover). I alluded to a plan I was working on to create an "educated layperson LRT proposal" (I'm a bridge engineer and train enthusiast with an interest in planning, so I know more than most but have no formal planning training - according to the cynicism of some on this forum perhaps that's a good thing). I intend to make that my winter project this year, and share it here when it's done.

Really? Add some capacity along scrub land from Beford and the base, stop walling off Armview and other rich people streets from Traffic, Build a bridge across the arm to the South End (again bothering rich people).

I know the usual suspects will cry about induced demand. (Which for the bridge it certainly would be but the induced demand is not people who are now on a 90 minute bus ride instead of a 40 minute drive getting a new 25 minute drive. It woud the building of affordable housing and yes making that drive again 40 minutes but with thousands of more affordbale SFHs.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Really? Add some capacity along scrub land from Beford and the base, stop walling off Armview and other rich people streets from Traffic, Build a bridge across the arm to the South End (again bothering rich people).

I know the usual suspects will cry about induced demand. (Which for the bridge it certainly would be but the induced demand is not people who are now on a 90 minute bus ride instead of a 40 minute drive getting a new 25 minute drive. It woud the building of affordable housing and yes making that drive again 40 minutes but with thousands of more affordbale SFHs.

In my opinion political viability is a necessary part of a sophisticated proposal. As much as a true ringroad could be really helpful for the traffic situation, I struggle to see how building a highway through the rail cut, or an arm bridge, could ever see the light of day without the wealthy and powerful who live along the water killing it before it even gets tabled.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I look forward to seeing his proposal too.

I am not a fan of BRT, but, I have a lot of time for LRT and heavy commuter rail. LRT, covered in the downtown, and, elevated elsewhere on the peninsula makes a lot of sense. In the off peninsular areas, LRT could be run at grade. Heavy commuter rail should be reserved for exurban/downtown commutes via the rail cut.

Any solution has to be multipronged (heavy passenger rail, LRT, trolleys, busses, fast ferries and, yes, even improved vehicular access to the core (new bridge anyone?) have to be factored into the equation.

The reference project to me would be Montreal's REM - fairly cost effective and widespread reach by making use of existing ROW where possible, tunneling through congested / high land value areas, and travelling along elevated guideways next to busy roadways in the car-oriented suburbs. All-in price tag of around $70m/kilometer, which by today's standards is consdered fairly affordable for north american higher-order transit.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

The reference project to me would be Montreal's REM - fairly cost effective and widespread reach by making use of existing ROW where possible, tunneling through congested / high land value areas, and travelling along elevated guideways next to busy roadways in the car-oriented suburbs. All-in price tag of around $70m/kilometer, which by today's standards is consdered fairly affordable for north american higher-order transit.

It would be ideal for an LRT line to terminate at the train station. Although not popular with bordering properties, an elevated track above the rail cut (and the bridges) would get the job done. There is the Halifax Greenway that provides an approx. 20m buffer from the rail cut to adjacent properties that would provide some insulation.

Railcut 20m buffer:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6300698,-..._ep=EgoyMDI0MTAyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Summerville

The Docklands Light Rail in London comes to mind. It travels above neighbourhoods that are much more dense than Halifax. And it also tunnels under the Thames

It depends on what areas you are comparing but some of central Halifax is or will be about on par with European cities for density. For example Spring Garden Road is probably on par with medium-scale residential areas in central London or average areas in intramuros Paris (I believe some census tracts did hit average Paris density a few census periods ago). Of course, there are no Canary Wharf type employment nodes, nor is there the level of trip demand that comes from being part of a huge metropolitan area, and there isn't the same geographical extent of dense areas in which to build longer routes and larger systems with better economies of scale.

But still, I think the denser parts of the peninsula are likely solidly within the same density range as urban areas of Europe with much better transit service. And that footprint of dense areas is expanding with developments like Richmond Yards and other similar plans. It doesn't seem far-fetched to me to imagine that areas like Robie and Almon will one day merit LRT stops. Or that Barrington or Gottingen or Spring Garden Road could justify underground stations. I think the main limiting factor is a lack of government support for transit, not a lack of overall economic development or trip demand.

[IanWatson]

I think the other way we need to start thinking about transit is using to invite density. In HRM we've always been of the mindset that there needs to be ridership to justify a transit line. But places that do transit well build the transit first and then put the density around it.

It does mean subsidizing that line for a while, and in the past that would have been risky in Atlantic Canada because you could end up building the line and then having it sit unused for 10+ years. But with the amount of pent up development demand these days I think we'd be very justified in taking a transit-first approach.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I think the other way we need to start thinking about transit is using to invite density. In HRM we've always been of the mindset that there needs to be ridership to justify a transit line. But places that do transit well build the transit first and then put the density around it.

If you build it, they will come.

Are there any visionaries out there in HRM city hall???

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

It does mean subsidizing that line for a while, and in the past that would have been risky in Atlantic Canada because you could end up building the line and then having it sit unused for 10+ years. But with the amount of pent up development demand these days I think we'd be very justified in taking a transit-first approach.

Around here it's now automatic. If there's a rapid transit station or planned stop, the density and height limits within a certain radius are increased.

It takes so long to build a transit line that there is a lot of time to build developments during the construction. The next line to open here is now pushed back to 2027 and it was approved in 2018. If there were a Robie LRT route or similar there would be time to build lots of new development. The ideal would be to implement BRT, then build LRT (maybe with some underground to make it easier to serve downtown), then relocate the BRT to other corridors. It seems very plausible for Halifax to have 1 LRT line (up and down the peninsula, connecting mainland areas to some degree) and 2-3 BRT lines. Eventually, this could expand to 2 lines (peninsula and crosstown). These lines could be on the order of 8 km long; not really comparable to rail transit systems in larger cities people say Halifax cannot support.