Rail-based Transit Discussion

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

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).

As long as the height difference isn't too great, couldn't a small raised section/ramp work, rather than building a full platform? I don't think it would be necessary for each entrance to the vehicle to be fully accessible, as long as at least one entrance is.

[Jstaleness]

What do the folks in Vancouver think of the electric trolly buses? I still think Halifax's biggest issue is getting people downtown first and not moving them around once they are here. If we used a similar electric bus on a belt or ring type systems and had the trains bring them to VIA, would that work? I'm don't want to support more sprawl but I'd like to start with a train system to get people into Halifax.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Hali87

As long as the height difference isn't too great, couldn't a small raised section/ramp work, rather than building a full platform? I don't think it would be necessary for each entrance to the vehicle to be fully accessible, as long as at least one entrance is.

Whether a platform is 3m or 30m long, it still creates the same traffic bottleneck at all times.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

What do the folks in Vancouver think of the electric trolly buses? I still think Halifax's biggest issue is getting people downtown first and not moving them around once they are here. If we used a similar electric bus on a belt or ring type systems and had the trains bring them to VIA, would that work? I'm don't want to support more sprawl but I'd like to start with a train system to get people into Halifax.

I like them. They are much quieter and cleaner than diesel buses. If they represented a large portion of bus traffic along Barrington or Spring Garden those two streets would be much more pleasant. The downside is that they are stuck more or less on the fixed overheads, although they do have batteries and can drive for a while without line power. They also pop off of the lines occasionally but that is not very common.

Apparently the electrics last longer and are more powerful. I would assume the line power is cheaper than diesel. It is definitely more flexible and can be much more environmentally friendly. Electric buses in Halifax could run off of Churchill Falls power, for example.

I don't really know how much they cost overall compared to diesel buses. To get a good sense of that you'd have to know maintenance costs, fuel costs, the cost to put up the lines, and the cost of the vehicles. I wouldn't be surprised if the overall cost structure were pretty good.

Unfortunately when it comes to transit in Halifax there doesn't seem to be much awareness of the solutions available, nor is there much willingness to follow through on more than the bare minimum. Metro Transit produces very modest 5 year plans -- the highlights are to do things like create an express bus route or build a new bus shed, and these sorts of projects are frequently pushed off.

[MalcolmTucker]

I believe in Edmonton when they decided to get rid of their trolley fleet that replacements are about twice the cost of a conventional bus of the same size. Plus you need a whole different set of mechanics, spare parts.

You also need to find places for substations, which are hard to place due to NIMBY issues, along with general reaction to any overhead lines being put up.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Whether a platform is 3m or 30m long, it still creates the same traffic bottleneck at all times.

Almost all of the in-street stations would basically be an extension of the sidewalk with some kind of shelter. They could be raised a little bit to accomodate the height difference - the tracks would be running in the lane next to the sidewalk, and could be close enough to the curb (at least at the stations) that passengers could roll on/off via these sloped ramps. Any extra land that would be needed to accomodate this either belongs to the city already or to an institution that would probably go out of their way to support this sort of thing. The only major exception is North Street, and if one of the peninsula stations had to go it would be that one. It's along the narrowest part of Robie and there's hardly any space to work with. Even closing one lane of Robie there could cause some serious traffic issues and part of the final thesis will be looking at ways to deal with this - maybe making this section of Robie 1-way but reversing.

One other station that could be tricky is Hydrostone, but I think this would be easier to deal with. Kaye Street could be rerouted (that intersection doesn't really make sense anyway) or maybe the owners of the house at the corner of Kaye and Young won't mind having a transit vehicle stopping outside the front door every 10 minutes. For some people that would be a nuisance, for others it would be about as convenient as it gets.

I'll adjust the map later tonight so that it's easy to see the sites in street view. I'm working on finding software to model the street-station-sidewalk interface, anybody know of any good programs? Something like the software being used to generate the basic stadium renderings.

[Waye Mason]

This city has an annual capital budget of $120 million. We only spend $25 million a year on metro transit as it is. Just doing commuter rail on existing tracks is $30 million. LRT

I'd love to see street cars/LRT but that is $100s of millions, and we are decades away from being able to consider that expense.

I think it far more likely that we start to create limited bus only/bus way and also HOV lanes to move buses on and off the peninsula and into Burnside faster.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

This city has an annual capital budget of $120 million. We only spend $25 million a year on metro transit as it is. Just doing commuter rail on existing tracks is $30 million. LRT

I'd love to see street cars/LRT but that is $100s of millions, and we are decades away from being able to consider that expense.

I think it far more likely that we start to create limited bus only/bus way and also HOV lanes to move buses on and off the peninsula and into Burnside faster.

There is a Masters thesis from 1997 that proposes a system very similar to mine using DLRT vehicles (single line from Bedford ending at Granville Mall using in-street tracks beyond the Westin) and capital costs were in the range of $15 million. It is available at the municipal public archives in Burnside, and Dal also has copies. I don't think the cost would have gone up that much since then.

[Hali87]

I edited the map to better reflect the station locations. You can see the actual sites in street view - stations would be located on the right side of the streets, looking north. The link again is: http://g.co/maps/xaugs

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

This city has an annual capital budget of $120 million. We only spend $25 million a year on metro transit as it is. Just doing commuter rail on existing tracks is $30 million. LRT

I'd love to see street cars/LRT but that is $100s of millions, and we are decades away from being able to consider that expense.

I think it far more likely that we start to create limited bus only/bus way and also HOV lanes to move buses on and off the peninsula and into Burnside faster.

Yes that is a problem - however there may be the potential that the Provincial or Federal Government could contribute to the project through different programs, it will all depend as the economy improves.

There also is the fact that with projects like an LRT or streetcar, you do recover the cost over time with the property tax as redevelopment occurs over the line. Unfortunately it's a very slow process, because the first few years recovers very little and then then increases overtime as more development occurs.

Edmonton got rid of it's overhead system for precisely the reasons explains in an earlier post; locating the substation and the cost. They replaced the system with conventional diesel as I understand it.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

This city has an annual capital budget of $120 million. We only spend $25 million a year on metro transit as it is. Just doing commuter rail on existing tracks is $30 million. LRT

I'd love to see street cars/LRT but that is $100s of millions, and we are decades away from being able to consider that expense.

The capital budget is somewhat higher than that and, I think, supports the idea that the city should look at projects in the hundreds of millions.

Funding for these things is generally shared by all 3 levels of government, so the $200M LRT line becomes, say, an $80M expense for the city. These are also major projects with multi-year planning and implementation phases. It is reasonable to consider the amortized cost of the project over a time frame of decades. They don't have to be squeezed into one year's capital budget, just as people might not buy a car with earnings from only one year.

Consider that the City of Vancouver has a capital budget of under $300M. The City of Richmond's budget is considerably smaller. The Canada Line runs through those two municipalities and cost $2B. That project has been a great success and was completely worthwhile for the city.

Obviously every project needs to be sold on its merits relative to its cost. The $30M projects may be great. A $100M+ cost however is not a good reason to immediately rule out a transit project.

[halifaxboyns]

With a streetcar project; you can also recover some costs by means of a local improvement levy on all the property along the line that would be subject to new zoning to encourage redevelopment.

Yet again, another slow means of recovering the cost - but it's still another way.

I also have to say, I love the Canada line. It is such a joy to take, although I was surprised that they didn't use the same vehicles. One of my concerns with the line is that designed the line to only be expandable (for capacity) by decreasing the headway between trains, allowing more trains per hour. That works - only to a point. Once you've reached the minimum safe headway - then what? Plus the platforms can't be extended without more construction...they didn't think about that. The Expo/Millennium lines can be expanded a lot easier by adding another train car.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by someone123

The capital budget is somewhat higher than that and, I think, supports the idea that the city should look at projects in the hundreds of millions. Metro transit just 19 million. I slightly understated capital, slightly overstated MT, pretty good from memory right before bedtime, I think...

Funding for these things is generally shared by all 3 levels of government, so the $200M LRT line becomes, say, an $80M expense for the city. These are also major projects with multi-year planning and implementation phases. It is reasonable to consider the amortized cost of the project over a time frame of decades. They don't have to be squeezed into one year's capital budget, just as people might not buy a car with earnings from only one year.

Consider that the City of Vancouver has a capital budget of under $300M. The City of Richmond's budget is considerably smaller. The Canada Line runs through those two municipalities and cost $2B. That project has been a great success and was completely worthwhile for the city.

Obviously every project needs to be sold on its merits relative to its cost. The $30M projects may be great. A $100M+ cost however is not a good reason to immediately rule out a transit project.

Capital budget in 2010/11 was $144 million, with $6 million in cost sharing.

http://halifax.ca/budget/documents/22011-12Summary_000.pdf

I'm not ruling it out, but I am saying that I think a modest ferry and rail proposal is more likely, cost effective and you can't afford both.

I did a calculation that if HRM spent the same on capital projects as Toronto does on a per capita basis, even adjusted for income/property value, it still works out to over $130 million a year. So Toronto spends as much money on capital projects for transit as Halifax spends on capital projects period on a per capita basis.

I suspect the biggest issue is lack of matching funds from the province in HRM.

Also, comparing HRM to greater Vancouver is a bit apples and oranges, don't you think? Edmonton maybe, Winnipeg and Quebec city for sure. But Vancouver at a couple million? Hard to compare, the density here is no where near that.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Almost all of the in-street stations would basically be an extension of the sidewalk with some kind of shelter. They could be raised a little bit to accomodate the height difference - the tracks would be running in the lane next to the sidewalk, and could be close enough to the curb (at least at the stations) that passengers could roll on/off via these sloped ramps. Any extra land that would be needed to accomodate this either belongs to the city already or to an institution that would probably go out of their way to support this sort of thing. The only major exception is North Street, and if one of the peninsula stations had to go it would be that one. It's along the narrowest part of Robie and there's hardly any space to work with. Even closing one lane of Robie there could cause some serious traffic issues and part of the final thesis will be looking at ways to deal with this - maybe making this section of Robie 1-way but reversing.

One other station that could be tricky is Hydrostone, but I think this would be easier to deal with. Kaye Street could be rerouted (that intersection doesn't really make sense anyway) or maybe the owners of the house at the corner of Kaye and Young won't mind having a transit vehicle stopping outside the front door every 10 minutes. For some people that would be a nuisance, for others it would be about as convenient as it gets.

I'll adjust the map later tonight so that it's easy to see the sites in street view. I'm working on finding software to model the street-station-sidewalk interface, anybody know of any good programs? Something like the software being used to generate the basic stadium renderings.

So, the trains are going to wait for every car turning right at every intersection, and to enter stations? Usually since right turns have much more capacity than left turns (if there is no advanced green for the left turn) higher capacity transit goes in the middle and left turns are eliminated. Plus every car parking, oversize delivery vehicles would be blocking part of the rail ROW, the list goes on and on.

Denver has curb lanes for LRT in it its downtown, which you can see here,

but the lane is also restricted to trains only, and turns are restricted by downtown Denver being almost exclusively one way streets.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I'm not ruling it out, but I am saying that I think a modest ferry and rail proposal is more likely, cost effective and you can't afford both.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. By can't afford both do you mean can't afford to build both simultaneously, or do you mean that the city can't afford to maintain multiple transit routes like that at once?

The commuter rail is a shorter term project. It could be built in 2013 or something and then that capital expense would be finished. If streetcars were added 5 years later to complement the commuter rail they would be a separate expense. Halifax could certainly afford something like that if it is planned in a reasonable way and that is worth investigating.

Also, comparing HRM to greater Vancouver is a bit apples and oranges, don't you think? Edmonton maybe, Winnipeg and Quebec city for sure. But Vancouver at a couple million? Hard to compare, the density here is no where near that.

We can also look at Edmonton or Quebec City if you like. Quebec City is in the process of planning a $1.5B tramway system that includes across the St. Lawrence and involves multiple municipalities. Halifax is about 60% as large and is stuggling to take on an (outdated, problematic) transit project that costs 2% as much. Halifax has a chronic lack of ambition compared to other cities (this is part of the reason why it bleeds talent and why it is so small). We can sit around coming up with reasons for why Halifax is exceptional but they are not going to fix the city's traffic problems.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

So, the trains are going to wait for every car turning right at every intersection, and to enter stations? Usually since right turns have much more capacity than left turns (if there is no advanced green for the left turn) higher capacity transit goes in the middle and left turns are eliminated. Plus every car parking, oversize delivery vehicles would be blocking part of the rail ROW, the list goes on and on.

Denver has curb lanes for LRT in it its downtown, which you can see here,

but the lane is also restricted to trains only, and turns are restricted by downtown Denver being almost exclusively one way streets.

What I had envisioned is exactly what Denver has there. The tracks would be train-only so cars obviously wouldn't be allowed to park on them, and some alteration to delivery bays would likely be necessary in some places, though not many. Hollis is 1-way as it is and the way the system is set up, any turns that would cross the tracks would be left turns. Since many other streets downtown are 1-way several can't even be accessed turning left from Hollis. The Robie line may or may not present more challenges - it is a 2-way street but there are few delivery bays fronting onto Robie or Agricola. Just out of curiosity (and so I can respond to your posts with more or less detail as necessary) how familiar are you with the streets of Halifax? My parents are both from Edmonton, and I've been there enough times to notice that the two cities have very little in common when it comes to issues of planning and urban form. I would go as far as to say that they are basically on opposite ends of the spectrum as far as Canadian cities go.

Originally Posted by someone123

The commuter rail is a shorter term project. It could be built in 2013 or something and then that capital expense would be finished. If streetcars were added 5 years later to complement the commuter rail they would be a separate expense. Halifax could certainly afford something like that if it is planned in a reasonable way and that is worth investigating.

For my thesis, I'm proposing multiple phases. Phase 1 would be the use of the existing CN line (or the replacement of the 2nd track if CN can't find a way to achieve temporal separation). Phase 1a, as I'll call it for now, would be the extension down Hollis Street ending at Historic Properties. Phase 2a would be the Robie-Agricola line, 2b would be the North Barrington extension.

Ideally Phase 1 and 1a would happen at the same time. This would make the service more attractive from the start and would work better as a "pilot project", because all other phases would use in-street tracks, so a line down the CN ROW would be a standalone project, not a pilot project. However if this is not possible then Bedford-VIA would still be a good starting point. Ideally HRM would still go with DLRT vehicles (like the Talents) rather than the BUDD cars, even if the initial service is scheduled commuter rail. We would save a lot of money in the long run and stations could be closer together, increasing ridership.

Phases 2a and 2b would likely come a few years later, and do not have to happen in any particular order. 2a could even be broken into two sub-phases, with the first being SMU-Quinpool. This would only require 1 additional train for 10-minute frequency and wouldn't have to deal with the narrow section of Robie right away. The advantage of getting 2a up and running is that it connects basically all of the major attractions on the peninsula outside the downtown core - Dal, SMU, all of the hospitals, NSIT, Spring Garden, the Hydrostone, Quinpool and the Commons to name a few. Phase 2b is contingent on the redevelopment of Cogswell (doesn't make sense to put tracks into a street that will be torn up in a couple years) but since it would service the shipyards it would be worthwhile pretty much from day 1.

I think a realistic timeframe for the system I'm working to be fully implemented is 10-15 years from the launch of Phase 1.

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by someone123

Halifax has a chronic lack of ambition compared to other cities (this is part of the reason why it bleeds talent and why it is so small). We can sit around coming up with reasons for why Halifax is exceptional but they are not going to fix the city's traffic problems.

How can we get planners and developers from Major cities to help us? To me it would seem like a fun challenge for someone from a large city to help design a system for a small city. I know budget is a big thing and Halifax allots very little to transit over-all. Does someone like that even feel welcome here? I guess to start we need an updated council. We need people with ambition to see this city through it's full potential and not continually hold it back because some minor resistance by the public. When Halifax finally realizes that it's better off benefiting the many as opposed to satisfying the few we will see change.

[someone123]

One of the problems, I think, is that many of the proposals seem to be driven by councillors or city planners and nobody takes a step back to look at all the available options. For example, the latest reports I saw for commuter rail just assumed they'd use the refurbished Budd cars and run at 30 minute intervals only at peak times. There was no rationale given for this choice. Maybe the CN study will examine these other options but that seems unlikely.

Companies like Bombardier should be involved in this process and should be invited to share their expertise and cost estimates. There should also be a plan to bump up service levels to high frequencies so people can rely on the rail system for their routine trips during the day (can the CN line support this?). On top of this there should be substantial transit-oriented development -- the Bedford waterfront for example is a great opportunity that adds to the appeal of rail service, but is not mentioned in current presentations.

Hali87 - I agree that DLRT vehicles similar to what are used on other systems like the O-Train seem preferable to the Budd cars. The extension down Hollis would also add tremendously to the desirability of the system. It wouldn't need to be implemented in the very beginning but they should be planning for expansion. An ideal system would allow for seamless integration of trains running on the CN right of way and trains running along tracks on surface streets.

My big worry here is that the scope of planning will be too narrow and that Halifax will end up with a cheap but undesirable system that doesn't suit the needs of many potential riders (such a failure would of course by explained by saying "there you see it -- Halifax is too small for rail and we should never have tried in the first place!"). If we can have a good rail system with high frequencies that serves a substantial portion of commuters then that is worth $100M or more. Road construction costs us $100s of millions of dollars over the years, and commute times, congestion, and widening are fundamental quality of life issues in the city.

[someone123]

Here's a great picture. Obviously we cannot afford this type of gold-plated big-city infrastructure.


Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordland_Line

[Waye Mason]

I'm all for transit, I take transit to work every day, I have been a supporter of commuter rail for 20 years, I went to the first meeting Transport 2000 presented on the matter at Halifax city hall back pre-amalgamation and have supported it ever since.

I don't feel wanting to take a long hard look at the budget and being realistic about our fiscal capacity is short sighted or negative. I want to see investments in transit, but growing the transit capital budget is going to have an impact on other projects. Or, alternately, we are going to have to raise taxes, or go into debt.

So yeah, I want to talk transit, but to have a real debate about it you have to acknowledge the cost, both operating and capital, and you have to look at what HRMs capacity is, and what the provinces capacity is.

I think, personally, we need to double the transit capital and operating budget, and I think the real cost to budget for the capital side would "only" be 6.5 mil if we could get the Feds and province onboard for a third each, like Toronto and big cities. I think the province is the harder sell, when right now we are cutting the childrens hospital.

I'd like to see the subsidy for operations increase from 10.5 to 21 million, to support the operating cost of expansion.

What it comes down to is that at a total cost to budget of $16.5 million, and that is a lot of money when the effective budget of HRM just over $756 million, including policing and fire and everything. It is a challenge.