Rail-based Transit Discussion

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by beyeas

As much as I would love that, I think that the reality of politics in Halifax is such that it is easier to get suburban commuter rail first, rather than a downtown focussed LRT loop.

Even setting aside the fact that the current council set-up is such that if one region gets something all the others cry and 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 until either they all have a 1/2 arsed version of it or they kill it because if their ward can't have it too then no one should. That may slightly improve after shrinking council, but it won't fundamentally go away.

The real issue though is the fact that hating the peninsula and in particular claiming that "Halifax" gets everything and we get nothing is practically a sport in this city. I just don't see how it will fly at the council level because they feed off of the Evil Peninsula who take all the money vs Poor Hard Done By Suburbs.

Realistically that says to me that sub-urban commuter rail possibly could sell, whereas downtown focussed LRT loops would not. At this point I really don't even care all that much whether it is chicken or egg though (even if I do like your plan purely from a transit perspective), because if we start with a commuter line it will at least get rail transit on people's radar and then we can build from there.

I like your chicken and egg analogy.

It would be cheaper and politically easier to start with heavy commuter rail connecting the peninsula to the suburbs. This would benefit a larger portion of the HRM (including the off-peninsula types), and would have the added benefit of helping with rush hour congestion on and off the peninsula. This approach could be done easily with an investment of several tens of millions of dollars.

If you start the process with this "chicken", then perhaps you might eventually end up with the "egg" of LRT for the peninsula. If you dump the suburbanites at the VIA station on their morning commute, they might see the value of establishing connecting LRT lines to the core, SGR and the hospital/university district. This would build support for LRT from the entire community, not just peninsular Haligonians.

You start small, with what is logical and easily achievable , and build incrementally upon this base. The obvious first step is heavy commuter rail.

[halifaxboyns]

Monctonrad points out the fundamental flaw in the commuter rail plan - we'd get them as far as the train station and then what?

I like the trains for the rail link for pearson - totally agree, I'd rather see them. They reason I say that doing a streetcar first might be better is that you could establish the route quickly and then once the train station is part of the route then establish the commuter rail option.

Personally - I can see 3 potential commuter rail lines, 2 which could be up and running quickly. The train station to Windsor Junction and to Upper Sackville/Beaverbank Road. I wouldn't want the lines to exit HRM though...unless other counties or municipalities contributed to operation.

The third line would be to Tantallon and would require the existing 'walking trail' be re-established as a rail corridor. That will be controversial and people won't like it, but I think if there is willingness, you could expropriate some property next to the ROW to widen it so that the trail could be re-established.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Monctonrad points out the fundamental flaw in the commuter rail plan - we'd get them as far as the train station and then what?

Not necessarily a flaw, but perhaps a strength in the argument for peninsular LRT.

Initially, the "dumped" passengers would walk to their destinations from the VIA station, or take the bus on reconfigured routes. Over time however, and with encouragement from civic authorities, perhaps the citizenry (commuters included) would warm to the idea of a comfy LRT system to get them to their final destination.

A combined heavy commuter rail/LRT model would mirror what they have in Toronto. Many commuters take the GO train into Union Station and then transfer to the subway to reach other areas of downtown.

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The third line would be to Tantallon and would require the existing 'walking trail' be re-established as a rail corridor. That will be controversial and people won't like it, but I think if there is willingness, you could expropriate some property next to the ROW to widen it so that the trail could be re-established.

I should have swallowed my coffee before reading this part of your post. It was a hard swallow as I thought of what the area's residents would say if we took their walking path away. WHAT!!! NEVER!! It's kind of a shame though isn't it? Finally HRM and other counties have converted the old rail lines into something useful and now we are needing to take them right back. I'm all for it. There are lots of spaces where walking trails can be re-established. It's a shame we ever got away from rail in the first place.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Not necessarily a flaw, but perhaps a strength in the argument for peninsular LRT.

I agree... and to start with you could just have buses doing a loop through the downtown with 6 minute frequency or something (in essence the new downtown loop that already exists, but with high enough frequency to make it usable for commuters).

The, as you say, build off it to say "you know it would be even more efficient for you guys if the system connected to a series of trolley/LRT lines that could then extend their reach up the Argicola corridor etc".

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Not necessarily a flaw, but perhaps a strength in the argument for peninsular LRT.

Initially, the "dumped" passengers would walk to their destinations from the VIA station, or take the bus on reconfigured routes. Over time however, and with encouragement from civic authorities, perhaps the citizenry (commuters included) would warm to the idea of a comfy LRT system to get them to their final destination.

A combined heavy commuter rail/LRT model would mirror what they have in Toronto. Many commuters take the GO train into Union Station and then transfer to the subway to reach other areas of downtown.

Agreed - but you miss the opportunity that a stop at Mumford might provide as well.

If there was a stop at Mumford, then those going to the universities or hospitals could possibly transfer there. Then another set of bus routes at the train station to the same places as well (Dal/SMU, hospitals, DT).

I go back to the idea of using a streetcar as a way of not only densifying the north end of Halifax, but solving the issue of getting people into the DT core from the train station. I've talked about a streetcar on Agricola - but the dt portion of the route I've suggested would come inbound to DT along Hollis and out to the train station. Then follow Barrington under the tracks and loop back along the 'Port lands' by Pier 21 and the Farmers Market and then back outbound from DT along Lower Water street back up to Agricola and the north end.

If you used the same level of service as the Portland Streetcar, you could have every 10 minute service during peak times along the loop. People getting off the train would just leave through the back and board the streetcar near the Farmers Market to get back into dt. They would get off to from DT just in front of the Westin. This way, not only would you be getting people to and from the train station - you'd also be providing transportation for tourists from the cruiseships in summer and people who wanted to get to the farmers market but didn't have a car.

[someone123]

I agree with beyeas about the political aspect of all of this. It is similar to the third crossing issue where people talked about transit tunnels and so forth. I think those are cool too but they are just not going to happen. An LRT loop on the peninsula is more realistic but maybe not optimal if it would languish for 15 years and be watered down.

A project that physically exists in a large number of districts is definitely more palatable. The peninsula loop would also help everybody but is a harder sell as a standalone project.

I really wish the level of debate in Halifax could be lifted above the petty local bickering. It is absurd but the city is paying a 20% penalty or whatever so that people in far-flung suburbs can feel better. Sadly this is just one of the downsides of sprawl and much of the damage has already been done. Actually transit is probably a good way to fix this. If more people were able to quickly get downtown for events or work they would identify with the area more.

[halifaxboyns]

I asked a question - but found the answer, so my original posting is redundant.

[halifaxboyns]

Well I just had a quick look at the transportation section of the regional plan and I was pretty surprised that other than the map showing major roads and corridors - there wasn't a master plan attached to it.

The Regional Plan calls for 3 additional pieces to be done over the life of the RP:

1. A Transportation Master Plan;
2. A Road & Road Network functional plan; and
3. A Public Transit functional plan.

What I'm surprised about is - shouldn't the first plan have been done with the RP? This way you know what money is absolutely needed to fund infrastructure for 25 years? I know other things 'pop up' - but still shouldn't that have been done?

Here is what the RP says about each plan:

The Transportation Master Plan will provide a framework for:
1. developing and implementing strategic road expansion projects, Metro Transit projects and street standards and classifications;
2. integrating transportation planning with land use planning and environmental protection and conservation, particularly in relation to the development of centres as outlined in section 3.4;
3. incorporating the recommendations of transportation studies;
4. transportation demand management, commuter trip reduction programs and the Active Transportation Plan to encourage alternative modes of transportation;
5. developing a regional parking strategy;
6. a program for acquiring rail corridors deemed surplus; and
7. developing emergency preparedness plans in conjunction with the Joint Emergency Measures Organization and a hazardous goods route.

The Road and Road Network Functional Plan should consider:
1. a road classification system;
2. street standards;
3. emergency preparedness; and
4. hazardous goods routes.

The Public Transit Functional Plan should consider:
1. improvements to the existing transit system, including the cross harbour ferry system;
2. expansion of the MetroLink service;
3. the development of a fast ferry service;
4. the long-term possibility of rail or other transit when developing or responding to proposals affecting railway infrastructure, corridors or services; the long-term possibility of rail or other transit when planning bus or ferry terminals; and preserving any rail corridors that CN abandons in the future to ensure that commuter rail service is retained as a possible mode of transportation for the Municipality; (emphasis added)
5. the development of community and specialized transit services; and
6. improvements to transit service to the region’s major business parks for both employees and customers.

[Hali87]

Hello all!

I'm a longtime lurker of these threads and just wanted to put in my 2 cents on this issue.. I'm currently working to develop a rapid transit system for the Halifax area as part of my honours thesis at Dal.

The system that I have been working on is based loosely on the commuter rail studies and proposals between 1975 and the present. Though there is currently a study underway examining the potential use of the CN corridor for commuter rail, it could provide a better level of service by using DLRT vehicles much like the Ottawa O-Train. This would allow the line to continue through the downtown core rather than ending at the VIA station. The vehicles also perform much better than RDCs both in terms of acceleration (allowing a larger number of stations) and fuel efficiency (saving money in the long run). While the RDCs are high-floor, the DLRTs are low-floor, increasing accessibility and minimizing necessary platform infrastructure. The DLRTs also require fewer staff (1 per vehicle instead of 2) and would likely be cheaper to maintain. They also look a lot nicer, if that counts for anything.

The system would use the CN tracks between the VIA station and an outer terminus at either Sunnyside Mall or Bedford Commons. From the VIA station, the tracks would continue in-street on Hollis, ending near Waterside Centre. A second line would be entirely based on in-street tracks along Robie and Agricola Streets, terminating at NSIT at one end and a transfer station near SMU at the other.

Although the system uses in-street tracks, I hesitate to call it a streetcar. Only one set of tracks would be used, with passing lanes adjacent to some stations allowing trains traveling in opposite directions to pass each other. The trains would have complete transit prioritization at intersections, and other vehicles would not be allowed to drive on the tracks. This would allow for a complete separation between the trains and other traffic, creating a true rapid transit system. Though this may seem like a huge waste of road space, in practice it will generally amount to simply removing on-street parking from one side of each street used. It is actually a better use of space than bus-only lanes, because only one lane per street will need to be dedicated to the tracks (which can be used by vehicles traveling in both directions) rather than 2 separate bus lanes.

I am currently working under the assumption that the initial system could provide 10-minute frequency using a total of 6 2-car trains, 4 on the main line and 2 on the Robie-Agricola line. This is based on a 1997 master's thesis which proposed a similar system using DLRT vehicles. However, in the next couple months I will be meeting with representatives from OC Transpo and CN, so I should have more definite numbers in the future.

I created a system map of the proposed system available here: http://g.co/maps/qf7qr. This includes specific information relating to each station. All of the stations between Bedford Common and the VIA station are based on previous proposals.

Let me know what you think of the system so far... since this is my honours thesis, I may not be able to incorporate individual suggestions into the final report, although I certainly welcome feedback, especially more general suggestions regarding resources that are available or other transit systems with similar characteristics.

[Hali87]

One other thing, regarding the station names:

In the map I created, many of the stations have alternate names in parentheses. The initial proposal would use the non-bracketed names; those in parentheses could be used as a means to leverage donations to help cover capital costs. For example, SMU may be willing to donate money to the system in exchange for naming rights, so that South Robie Station would instead be called Saint Mary's Station.

[alps]

Ooo, I'm planning on doing my honours thesis (next year) on the same subject, though my plan is completely different. I'm Ben, I took transportation planning in winter 2011 -- do we know each other? Are you working with Dr. Habib?

[Hali87]

Nice to meet you Ben! Alex here.. and no, I don't think we've met, my honours is through the sustainability dept. That's funny though - I've heard that one of the MURP classes is doing a project on this as well. It will be interesting to see which of the proposals are ultimately integrated into the public transit network - if any. However there seems to be so much interest in some sort of rail transit that it will probably be a reality soon, in one form or another.

[alps]

I really hope so. If they're willing to sink a billion dollars into an antiquated and discredited approach -- seemingly endless highway expansion -- I think some form of rail transit is completely within our reach. Good luck on your thesis! I like the idea of opening up the north end/NSIT. My plan is actually a bit different in focus and scope than yours, I think: more suburban.

[Hali87]

That's interesting, I deliberately focused more on the urban side largely because I think some sort of rapid transit needs to be in place in the urban core in order to make commuter rail viable. Consider the three cities in Canada with true commuter rail services - Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver. All three of these systems feed into rapid transit networks that are unaffected by core traffic - a commuter rail system ending at VIA would dump passengers into some of the most congested streets in HRM.

[alps]

I agree, I was kinda torn between the desire to see a quick way to get around within the peninsula, and the recognition that a great deal of congestion on the peninsula actually comes from people commuting from afar. Hard to balance those two needs when they might require different types of vehicles, trackage/clearance, etc...and can we do it without building two separate systems? (a la TTC/GO or STM/AMT on a smaller scale)

So my plan sort of ignored public transit within the peninsula, which I guess I'll have to work out next year I haven't done much research into the different types of rolling stock though so I wouldn't have an idea about what technology might suit our needs best.

[Hali87]

What people don't seem to take into account when saying we need a ''GO-like'' system is the sheer distance between GO stations. A scaled-down GO system using heavy rail would not work as well well because heavy rail vehicles need a longer distance to attain their top speeds. Ever been on the GO train to Oshawa? I'm not sure that the trains even reach their max speed between Oshawa and Whitby stations. If you look at a GO system map, consider that the distance between Union and York U is about the same as the distance between the Seaport and Sunnyside Mall. There are no stops between Union and York U. Conversely, the Spadina branch of the subway is also about the same length.

[Hali87]

A lot of my research so far has been centered on the O-train in Ottawa, since it was initially designed to use both mainline and in-street track with a single vehicle type - the bombardier talent, which is a diesel-powered vehicle that otherwise has light rail characteristics. There is a TUNS masters thesis from 1997 that looked at providing commuter service between Bedford and Granville mall using a similar vehicle, the siemens regiosprinter, which is no longer being produced. This thesis is available through the Sexton library (online as well as hard copy) and also through the municipal archives, if you're interested in checking it out. There's also another more recent proposal for a system that would use the rail line along the Dartmouth waterfront, although I felt that was outside the scope of my study since it doesn't really connect to the main line very well.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I created a system map of the proposed system available here: http://g.co/maps/qf7qr. This includes specific information relating to each station. All of the stations between Bedford Common and the VIA station are based on previous proposals.

Let me know what you think of the system so far... since this is my honours thesis, I may not be able to incorporate individual suggestions into the final report, although I certainly welcome feedback, especially more general suggestions regarding resources that are available or other transit systems with similar characteristics.

I fear the system proposed would be impractical unless regulations change that would allow Talents to operate on an active freight line. In the rail cut the line might not be busy enough to need anything but time based seperation (even if it would mean shutting down transit for a bit for freight and VIA movements during the day), but along the Bedford Highway, I doubt the strategies used for the O-Train on a seldom used freight line would work. You could always use heavier vehciles, but the costs of building trackbed in the city to isolate vibration and distribute the weight, along with utility relocation would be very very high. And that is with utility relocation costs being high even for a normal LRT route.

Also, even if you could clear those hurdles, running a federally regulated railroad on a mixed street might be all but impossible. You would also have to deal with building platforms on streets - even Talents aren't low floor enough to get away without them (for at least wheelchair boarding).

[Hali87]

Thanks, I definitely realize that these are concerns and in a couple weeks I'll be meeting with someone from OC Transpo to see how they dealt with these issues - the original plan was to use the Talents in-street but Ottawa has since decided to go with electrified LRT vehicles. I'm also planning to meet with CN to see about the whole temporal separation issue. If this can't be achieved then maybe the second set of tracks between Bedford and downtown could be restored and used for passenger service, although this would up the cost significantly (though less than starting from scratch).