Halifax Traffic

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

As someone who lives on the peninsula, I don't feel like bringing MORE vehicles from off the peninsula onto the peninsula, just to go somewhere else off the peninsula is the answer. Through traffic is a highway-type solution, not a dense urban environment solution.

Generally, my assertion is that Herring Cove Rd. and the 103/102 are dumping people onto the peninsula that don't want to be on the peninsula but must cross it to get to their final destination.

The intent of my proposal is to provide a more direct line highway alternative for existing cars and buses so that they may avoid peninsula streets. The current situation is that cars that may not want to be on the peninsula to get from their point A to their point B have to use peninsula streets. ie. Spryfield (or further out) to north end Dartmouth or anywhere out the 103 to downtown Dartmouth. Expedite these folks onto the Mackay and disperse them on the Dartmouth side. Let's get them off of Quinpool, Chebucto, North, Bayer's Rd., Joe Howe and Lady Hammond, and all those imagined short cut streets, etc., etc. The two exits I propose from this newly build 102 extension/gap filler from the end of the 102 to the Mackay, would be 1, to a parking area for access to transit at Mumford and 2, to a beefed up Bayers/Young corridor to disperse the traffic that does have the peninsula as their destination. I 100% agree that we don't want additional traffic clogging up peninsula streets.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

A major part of the solution here is to create viable alternatives in the form of active transportation and especially effective transit, so that those who wish to use those forms of transport can. That doesn't mean forcing anyone out of their cars. In fact, if we're able to entice more people towards other forms of transportation, it ought to make for easier driving as well.

And yet further perpetuation of the “build it and they will come” theory.

I’m not anti cycle any more than you are anti car, if you have read my past posts you already know that. However I do think that cycling infrastructure is necessary and important, but frankly I am tired of it being shopped out there as a viable form of transportation for the general public that will take a huge chunk of cars off the streets. I’m glad that cycling works for you, and that it makes you happy. The reality is, however, that it’s not a viable and/or a desired alternative for most people, and I don’t think it’s necessary to go into all the reasons that it’s not.

So let’s just stop the charade of creating this vision of bicycle lanes crowded with smiling cyclists even on cold, wet, or snowy days. Build cycling infrastructure, whether it restricts car traffic or not, but get onto the job that will actually make a difference… good, effective, efficient transit. And let the cyclists just enjoy the ride on nice days as most do, without the pressure of having to be the solution to urban transportation woes.

Sorry for the venting, but after several years of reading these fairytales, I think I have reached my capacity, while watching car traffic become demonstrably worse, seeing bike lanes carry 0.0001% of commuters to their jobs, and watching the city sit on their hands, accomplishing zero headway on transit development.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

And yet further perpetuation of the “build it and they will come” theory.

I’m not anti cycle any more than you are anti car, if you have read my past posts you already know that. However I do think that cycling infrastructure is necessary and important, but frankly I am tired of it being shopped out there as a viable form of transportation for the general public that will take a huge chunk of cars off the streets. I’m glad that cycling works for you, and that it makes you happy. The reality is, however, that it’s not a viable and/or a desired alternative for most people, and I don’t think it’s necessary to go into all the reasons that it’s not.

So let’s just stop the charade of creating this vision of bicycle lanes crowded with smiling cyclists even on cold, wet, or snowy days. Build cycling infrastructure, whether it restricts car traffic or not, but get onto the job that will actually make a difference… good, effective, efficient transit. And let the cyclists just enjoy the ride on nice days as most do, without the pressure of having to be the solution to urban transportation woes.

Sorry for the venting, but after several years of reading these fairytales, I think I have reached my capacity, while watching car traffic become demonstrably worse, seeing bike lanes carry 0.0001% of commuters to their jobs, and watching the city sit on their hands, accomplishing zero headway on transit development.

"Build it and they will come" isnt' a theory; it's been demonstrated over and over and over again. I'd really encourage you to visit Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver these days. I was really impressed when I was in Toronto in the fall--during rush hour, the bike lanes along Bloor Street, from High Park to downtown, appear to be carrying as many people as the rest of the street. Census data shows double-digit percentage in bike commuting in some areas there, and that's fro the 2021 census. This isn't limited to big cities; Victoria has had a lot of success as well, at a comparable scale.

So it really IS true that bike infrastructure can carry a substantial portion of travellers, not just the 0.0001%. It's already been pointed out here that on the peninsula, some census tracts have 5-6% bike mode share for commuting--and that was from the last census, before the noticeable uptick in cycling of the past couple of years.

I agree absolutely that transit is ultimately more important, but we can and should do both.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'd really encourage you to visit Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver these days.

I've been to all of those cities within the past 10 years. And in case you didn't catch it, I've said that cycling infrastructure is necessary and important, and should be built.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Census data shows double-digit percentage in bike commuting in some areas there, and that's fro the 2021 census.

Is covid-era data reliable, though? I'm not challenging your assertion, but I am wondering how many people were avoiding the face to face contact of transit due to the pandemic, and choosing option #2. Plus, how did WFH affect commute data?

Also, if we assume that "double-digit percentage" is a plateau for larger cities with arguably worse potential traffic issues than Halifax (and since we are saying double-digit and not a number I have to assume it's low teens), then it's still not enough to take a substantial bite out of traffic. Again, I agree that there should be bike infrastructure (for scooters and those little slow electric mini-bikes that I see around), but shopping it as a solution becomes tiresome, especially considering the weather that we have this time of year.

Your enthusiasm is admirable, BTW.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I agree absolutely that transit is ultimately more important, but we can and should do both.

This is the point, ultimately. If we really want to reduce car traffic, good transit has the best chance of luring people out of their cars (you'll note I used the word luring and not forcing). Though, to be completely transparent, as much as I am beating the drum for transit, seeing the crime and violence that has happened on TTC transit in recent years does give me pause. Maybe traffic isn't so bad after all.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Is covid-era data reliable, though? I'm not challenging your assertion, but I am wondering how many people were avoiding the face to face contact of transit due to the pandemic, and choosing option #2. Plus, how did WFH affect commute data?

Also, if we assume that "double-digit percentage" is a plateau for larger cities with arguably worse potential traffic issues than Halifax (and since we are saying double-digit and not a number I have to assume it's low teens),

2021 cycling commute numbers were actually down over the 2016 census, and I think that's likely due to an overall decline in commuting. I think it's hard to draw any conclusions one way or the other from 2021, and we need to wait for 2026 to get a better handle on a lot of things.

[someone123]

I thought Strasbourg's transit system was interesting. It is a bit bigger than Halifax but not that much (860,000) and within the ballpark scale that a multi-decade transit plan for Halifax needs to consider.

Strasbourg has commuter rail (RER), high-speed rail, and most interestingly to me a 50 km tram system that relies on park-and-rides around the ends of the lines:
https://www.cts-strasbourg.eu/en/getting-around/park-and-ride/

I think that model could work well in Halifax. You would not park around SGR or Barrington or Gottingen. The typical user would either take it within the core with no parking required (except maybe for bike/scooter), or you'd come in from farther away and park at a suburban node like Mic Mac Mall or Lacewood. In Strasbourg you pay a flat rate equivalent to about $7 CAD that covers a full day's transit pass for all riders of the vehicle and parking. It's a system that can work well to integrate both a busy urban core with limited room for cars and car-oriented suburbs.

Wikipedia has details on the tramway itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg_tramway

The capital cost has been modest even in recent years:

In late 2013, work started on a further extension of line A, from Illkirch-Lixenbuhl to the town centre of Illkirch-Graffenstaden. The extension opened on 23 April 2016, providing 1.8 kilometres (1.1 mi) of extra route and three extra stops. It cost €37m, of which the Strasbourg Eurométropole provided €29m, the French government contributed €5·3m, and €1·5m came from the Bas-Rhin département.

That's about $60M CAD for 1.8 km and 3 stops, completely within the doable range for Halifax. I think HRM is looking at $150M just for the Windsor Street Exchange. Expanding bottlenecks like that is likely significantly expensive relative to the cost of bypassing them with some higher-order transit.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

And yet further perpetuation of the “build it and they will come” theory.

I’m not anti cycle any more than you are anti car, if you have read my past posts you already know that. However I do think that cycling infrastructure is necessary and important, but frankly I am tired of it being shopped out there as a viable form of transportation for the general public that will take a huge chunk of cars off the streets. I’m glad that cycling works for you, and that it makes you happy. The reality is, however, that it’s not a viable and/or a desired alternative for most people, and I don’t think it’s necessary to go into all the reasons that it’s not.

So let’s just stop the charade of creating this vision of bicycle lanes crowded with smiling cyclists even on cold, wet, or snowy days. Build cycling infrastructure, whether it restricts car traffic or not, but get onto the job that will actually make a difference… good, effective, efficient transit. And let the cyclists just enjoy the ride on nice days as most do, without the pressure of having to be the solution to urban transportation woes.

Sorry for the venting, but after several years of reading these fairytales, I think I have reached my capacity, while watching car traffic become demonstrably worse, seeing bike lanes carry 0.0001% of commuters to their jobs, and watching the city sit on their hands, accomplishing zero headway on transit development.

Well said Mark. A measured and truthful statement.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I've been to all of those cities within the past 10 years. And in case you didn't catch it, I've said that cycling infrastructure is necessary and important, and should be built.



Is covid-era data reliable, though? I'm not challenging your assertion, but I am wondering how many people were avoiding the face to face contact of transit due to the pandemic, and choosing option #2. Plus, how did WFH affect commute data?

Also, if we assume that "double-digit percentage" is a plateau for larger cities with arguably worse potential traffic issues than Halifax (and since we are saying double-digit and not a number I have to assume it's low teens), then it's still not enough to take a substantial bite out of traffic. Again, I agree that there should be bike infrastructure (for scooters and those little slow electric mini-bikes that I see around), but shopping it as a solution becomes tiresome, especially considering the weather that we have this time of year.

Your enthusiasm is admirable, BTW.



This is the point, ultimately. If we really want to reduce car traffic, good transit has the best chance of luring people out of their cars (you'll note I used the word luring and not forcing). Though, to be completely transparent, as much as I am beating the drum for transit, seeing the crime and violence that has happened on TTC transit in recent years does give me pause. Maybe traffic isn't so bad after all.

A lot of the TTC crime wave is almost directly attributable to the catch and release, hug a thug policies of Mr Trudeau's former administration. Carney is attempting to tighten those up but Mr "bugger up Immigration" Sean Fraser has the file now so....

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

2021 cycling commute numbers were actually down over the 2016 census, and I think that's likely due to an overall decline in commuting. I think it's hard to draw any conclusions one way or the other from 2021, and we need to wait for 2026 to get a better handle on a lot of things.

Fair enough. Let’s talk after the 2026 numbers are out.

In the meantime, hopefully the city can get to work on a “think big” transit plan that will look after HRM’s needs for the future! Mind you, at times it feels like the equivalent to hoping to find out that Santa Claus is real, however optimism is better for my sense of wellbeing than the other alternative…

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I thought Strasbourg's transit system was interesting. It is a bit bigger than Halifax but not that much (860,000) and within the ballpark scale that a multi-decade transit plan for Halifax needs to consider.

Strasbourg has commuter rail (RER), high-speed rail, and most interestingly to me a 50 km tram system that relies on park-and-rides around the ends of the lines:
https://www.cts-strasbourg.eu/en/getting-around/park-and-ride/

I think that model could work well in Halifax. You would not park around SGR or Barrington or Gottingen. The typical user would either take it within the core with no parking required (except maybe for bike/scooter), or you'd come in from farther away and park at a suburban node like Mic Mac Mall or Lacewood. In Strasbourg you pay a flat rate equivalent to about $7 CAD that covers a full day's transit pass for all riders of the vehicle and parking. It's a system that can work well to integrate both a busy urban core with limited room for cars and car-oriented suburbs.

Wikipedia has details on the tramway itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg_tramway

The capital cost has been modest even in recent years:



That's about $60M CAD for 1.8 km and 3 stops, completely within the doable range for Halifax. I think HRM is looking at $150M just for the Windsor Street Exchange. Expanding bottlenecks like that is likely significantly expensive relative to the cost of bypassing them with some higher-order transit.

That’s intriguing to say the least. I would definitely be on board with a plan like that for Halifax.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

A lot of the TTC crime wave is almost directly attributable to the catch and release, hug a thug policies of Mr Trudeau's former administration. Carney is attempting to tighten those up but Mr "bugger up Immigration" Sean Fraser has the file now so....

Additionally, I think it’s a side effect of all the pressure put on society from the pandemic - the stress, isolation and resultant alcohol and drug abuse surrounding it. Then you have the housing crisis, which was turbocharged by Justin’s impulse immigration explosion. Homelessness, drug addiction, and lack of care availability for sufferers of mental health issues all combined for a perfect storm of social implosion, especially for those who were struggling when everything was still “good”. Now Trump BS and other reasons for affordability issues, especially in terms of food costs, are continuing to fan the flames.

I’m imagining that there will be a time again, in the next decade, when things will turn around again and at least for awhile things will level out and there will be less desperation out there. There are a lot of factors that could screw that up, however, so hang on…

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That’s intriguing to say the least. I would definitely be on board with a plan like that for Halifax.

Agreed. Sounds like a good plan.

The thing is that a lot of the peninsular folk seem to completely disregard the needs of suburbanites and visitors from the rest of NS and the greater Maritimes. They seem to think the downtown should be exclusively for the use and enjoyment of people who are in walking or bicycling distance from the core. This is a selfish point of view.

An integrated system of park 'n ride facilities joined to the core by a regular tram service could easily serve the needs of peninsular regulars, suburban commuters and occasional visitors from the outer colonies.

This should be looked into.

[someone123]

The way they are set up in urban areas is also superior. The shopping areas are quasi-pedestrianized (similar to Argyle) and the streetcars are "the" way to get around other than walking or bikes, etc. The streetcars come every 5 minutes at peak, like a mini metro, so no need to look up schedules and no anxiety about missing one. The tracks are small, the movement of the streetcars is predictable, and they're quieter and more comfortable than buses. Payment is just "tap" with a credit card so any tourist or visitor can use it. They don't attempt to cover the whole city, just the major corridors (Halifax would have 1 or 2 lines to start), and the routes are relatively simple.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The thing is that a lot of the peninsular folk seem to completely disregard the needs of suburbanites and visitors from the rest of NS and the greater Maritimes. They seem to think the downtown should be exclusively for the use and enjoyment of people who are in walking or bicycling distance from the core. This is a selfish point of view.

I think you are right that suburbanites and visitors matter, but I don't think urbanites are uniquely selfish. They are interested in solutions to their unique transportation problems, just like everybody else. They also really drive transit ridership and the most successful routes and provide the most per capita to revenues, so other disrupt this group at their peril. The peninsula is the golden goose for HRM and HRM is the golden goose for NS.

Suburbanites tend to completely ignore the needs of urbanites and will push for wrecking urban areas with vehicles. There were no NSians from small towns complaining about how hard it is for apartment dwellers without a car to get to Bayers Lake. And you don't hear people griping about parking but then also saying "but I understand the parking spots can also be used for space for people, so it's a balancing act". They simply cry out for what they want.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The thing is that a lot of the peninsular folk seem to completely disregard the needs of suburbanites and visitors from the rest of NS and the greater Maritimes. They seem to think the downtown should be exclusively for the use and enjoyment of people who are in walking or bicycling distance from the core.

"The thing is"? Seriously?

I have never, ever encountered that attitude. Mind you, I've only lived here for six decades. Maybe I just don't know the place yet.

I think someone123 has it exactly right: inhabitants of the peninsula "are interested in solutions to their unique transportation problems, just like everybody else".

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

They seem to think the downtown should be exclusively for the use and enjoyment of people who are in walking or bicycling distance from the core. This is a selfish point of view.

I don’t think this is true of many people, but I do think it’s true that the peninsula is often regarded as basically a business/cultural/service destination for the region at large, rather than a large collection of residential communities, which are collectively home to more than 80,000 people. It’s understandable that those of us who live here prioritize safety, comfort and convenience for ourselves and our families in our neighbourhoods. Turning city streets into high-speed traffic thoroughfares is contrary to that goal. (It does unfortunately seem as if this is the way the Houston government sees things.)

The reality is that the peninsula is both a regional hub and a major residential hub, and both need to be considered when figuring out transportation and traffic priorities.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

it's a balancing act

Key point.

The downtown is a destination for entertainment and urban experience, or can just be a nice place to walk around and enjoy the surroundings. Plus there are some business functions and services that you can only obtain downtown. Suburbanites and out-of-towners will understandably want and need to come downtown to access these things.

So the result is that there are not a lot of great options to do this, so people will jump in their cars to go, and traffic/parking challenges await them there, which also affects the quality of life for people who live downtown. In MonctonRad’s and other folks from the Maritimes cases, the only reasonable choice is to take a car.

The failure here is entirely with the City. They have had the power and opportunity to get on this and make something work, but all they have done is to roll out more buses with complicated bus routes that are unwelcoming to anyone who doesn’t need to use them on a regular basis. DT people blame the suburbs and vice versa, when really we all should be complaining to the city in unison.

Council needs to work together to fix this. If they can’t figure it out on their own, then do what someone123 has done and look abroad. Or better yet, hire someone123 to advise them! Something has to be done.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The failure here is entirely with the City. They have had the power and opportunity to get on this and make something work, but all they have done is to roll out more buses with complicated bus routes that are unwelcoming to anyone who doesn’t need to use them on a regular basis. DT people blame the suburbs and vice versa, when really we all should be complaining to the city in unison.

Council needs to work together to fix this. If they can’t figure it out on their own, then do what someone123 has done and look abroad. Or better yet, hire someone123 to advise them! Something has to be done.

Transit has been saddled with inept management and a lethal collective agreement seemingly forever. The result is the awful transit we have had forever. Sometime within the last year or so they brought in a new head guy from elsewhere who hoped to change things according to media reports but whether anything much has occurred I do not know.

The problem in the past has always been one of trying to appease squeaky wheels on Council so what you get is watered down service by trying to run buses in places like Porters Lake or Purcell Cove at the expense of better service in core areas. Add to that infrastructure issues that cause routes to get stuck in traffic and virtue signalling on things like expensive electric buses that cost multiples more than diesels and you begin to see the problem. Nobody has looked at it holistically instead of the siloed way it has always been done. We are wasting lots of tax dollars on the same old bad system.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Turning city streets into high-speed traffic thoroughfares is contrary to that goal. (It does unfortunately seem as if this is the way the Houston government sees things.)

It is bad for visitors too. Once people arrive they generally want to be able to get around on foot in a pleasant and convenient environment. It's hard to square that with tons of parking and high-throughput vehicle traffic.

It seems there is a disconnect where people put their traffic engineer and parking planner hat on sometimes and forget that some things they suggest will backfire and cause problems in the places they're trying to get to. You see the same blinders when people talk about events sometimes, like when they talk about going to a sporting event like how they think about driving up to a McDonald's. It doesn't work at scale as you end up with huge inconvenient parking and traffic bottlenecks, and people like to make an evening out of it. The Wanderers or Scotiabank Centre are parking and traffic nightmares on paper according to the drive-up-and-park model but in the real world they're far superior to isolated suburban venues.

Good transit does solve the issues; it's easy to use, efficient (cheaper than driving/parking), and doesn't degrade the environment in the same way as it is much more space-efficient. There's some need to handle some vehicles in the urban core, like commercial deliveries, but it's a small percent of the total and doesn't need to be on every street.

[Keith P.]

HRM sadly tends to either do things that makes traffic worse, or alternately, sits and does nothing which creates horrible tie-ups that could make things better. I was struck by this today around 3:15 in the afternoon when bad planning on my part landed me on Joseph Howe Drive in total gridlock. When I crossed over the flyover to the Windsor st Exchange the problem became immediately apparent. The timing of the traffic signals (presumably controlled by HRM) was totally the cause. I had an immediate thought that it was remarkable that no traffic engineers (or even student interns) had been dispatched there with stopwatches and clickers to analyze what more appropriate timing would be. Perhaps it never occurred to anyone, or perhaps HRM just doesn’t care.