General Updates and News

[someone123]

One good way to think of this is the modal share. No city is going to hit 100% transit, but if Halifax were to go from 10% transit to 20% or 30% transit then there would be a lot of savings in terms of the amount of road space that would need to be maintained for vehicles. Even those who choose not to take transit would benefit from the savings.

Similarly, even out in far-flung suburbs you are not going to find 100% of people driving. Some don't want to and many can't, so there is a demand for transit as a public service.

In the same way, the suburban/urban infill split might go from 84/16 to 70/30 or 60/40. That would save billions of dollars and would make it a lot easier to have efficient transit services. We'd be able to have more routes like the 1, which actually makes a profit, and there would be less need for suburban arterial roads and money-losing suburban transit service.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

not that we can afford LRT anyway

I disagree. There are $1B LRT projects, but there are also $30M or $60M projects that come in at around $10M per kilometer. It would be worth that kind of money to have a good quality transit corridor in the city and that level of investment is pretty affordable for the municipality.

[pchipman]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Because we have a difference of opinion does not make yours right and mine wrong no matter who you quote.

I think you are confusing an opinion and an argument.

Counterfactual seems to be presenting an argument, as he has provided some evidence to back up his claims. You seem to be presenting an opinion, as you fail to back up your claims with evidence.

An argument and an opinion cannot be considered equally valid in a discussion.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Only to a point...
I will concede that as of the time that a road expansion opens, it does help traffic flow. I think no one disagrees with that, things move well. The problem becomes over time.

As the City grows, there are percentages that use cars, transit, walk etc. What those numbers are for HRM I don't know the exact breakdown; but I'd hazard an educated guess that car is likely over 50%. But as the city grows, while the percentages may go up or down, the volume of vehicles tends to go up and so more cars are on the road. That means that at peak times, capacity starts tightening and eventually the roads get jammed again. Keep in mind, when people complain about traffic we are talking about a 2-5 hour span of time in the day (morning/evening rush). So spending millions of $ to help cars get through an area and then the road performs super well (because it's under capacity) all other times - makes you wonder what the value is?

Keep in mind - after 5 years (typically) the road capacity reaches the clogged point again, after the road is expanded. So then you have to expand again - it's a never ending cycle.

I think we all agree that the only way forward is a combination effort and it's not as simple as expanding one road. It's a comprehensive effort of land use/transportation planning and investment.

To say that over time the streets will just become congested again simply means the city is growing. If you build a large apt. complex and it is sold out and more people want to move into the area you build another and another. It's all part of the infrastructure to sustain the population. If Halifax doesn't want to aggressively pursue alternate forms of transportation then street alignment is the obvious choice.

Subways are out, fast ferries are out, LTR is stalled in four decade quagmire, bike lanes are not built properly and for the most part go nowhere, there are no good walking routes, we don't have water taxis and we can't even paint our crosswalks. The taxis we do have are only allowed in certain areas thus stranding people who then give up and take their car.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Empire

To say that over time the streets will just become congested again simply means the city is growing. If you build a large apt. complex and it is sold out and more people want to move into the area you build another and another. It's all part of the infrastructure to sustain the population. If Halifax doesn't want to aggressively pursue alternate forms of transportation then street alignment is the obvious choice.

Subways are out, fast ferries are out, LTR is stalled in four decade quagmire, bike lanes are not built properly and for the most part go nowhere, there are no good walking routes, we don't have water taxis and we can't even paint our crosswalks. The taxis we do have are only allowed in certain areas thus stranding people who then give up and take their car.

Population growth is only one of three major factors in increasing congestion. Others are, existing drivers driving more. And non-drivers choosing to drive.

Studies show a direct linear relationship between provision of major urban road provision and congestion due to increased driving, over time. Not just in the aggregate, as in more population and thus drivers appear on the scene, but existing drivers start driving more. More roads = more congestion. *shrug*

As for the final lines, agreed; but then, maybe this should be the basis for a call for urgent action in the city, or at least, get its shit together.

IMHO, for example, the City has completely dropped the ball on LRT by killing its relationship with CN Rail, in order to save some money on infrastructure upgrades...

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

one good way to think of this is the modal share. No city is going to hit 100% transit, but if halifax were to go from 10% transit to 20% or 30% transit then there would be a lot of savings in terms of the amount of road space that would need to be maintained for vehicles. Even those who choose not to take transit would benefit from the savings.

Similarly, even out in far-flung suburbs you are not going to find 100% of people driving. Some don't want to and many can't, so there is a demand for transit as a public service.

In the same way, the suburban/urban infill split might go from 84/16 to 70/30 or 60/40. That would save billions of dollars and would make it a lot easier to have efficient transit services. We'd be able to have more routes like the 1, which actually makes a profit, and there would be less need for suburban arterial roads and money-losing suburban transit service.



I disagree. There are $1b lrt projects, but there are also $30m or $60m projects that come in at around $10m per kilometer. It would be worth that kind of money to have a good quality transit corridor in the city and that level of investment is pretty affordable for the municipality.

+100

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by pchipman

I think you are confusing an opinion and an argument.

Counterfactual seems to be presenting an argument, as he has provided some evidence to back up his claims. You seem to be presenting an opinion, as you fail to back up your claims with evidence.

An argument and an opinion cannot be considered equally valid in a discussion.

Oh I get it! If I quote somebody else because I do not have enough life experience of my own then I speak with more authority. But would I not have to have an opinion before I choose to quote somebody?
I thought we all had our own opinions about how to grow a city. Mine is based on many decades of watching cities grow and develop, not reading and quoting somebody else's opinion. Or is that somebody else's argument?
Quoting a suspect group and name dropping is not proof of any argument. It could be an indication of somebody not having enough life experience to have an opinion of their own.
I am greatly amused by those who have an idea about urban life from reading the latest paper. They seem to want to discount those of us who have some life experience to back up our thoughts. Time will tell who is right and one should be very weary of claiming to have all the answers. The papers of today could be the joke of tomorrow.

[pchipman]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Quoting a suspect group and name dropping is not proof of any argument. It could be an indication of somebody not having enough life experience to have an opinion of their own.

I think you misunderstand my comment. Counterfactual referenced this study:

Duranton, Gilles, and Matthew A. Turner (2011). The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities. American Economic Review 101, 6: 2616-2652.

It used data from across the US to estimate the relationship between the number of lanes on a given road and the volume of traffic on these roads. The authors observed a proportional increase in vehicle traffic to the number of lanes on these roads. These are objective measurements - evidence. The authors suggest that widening roads will not relieve congestion. This is an argument based on the evidence provided in the study.

BUT, importantly, the authors did not observe an effect of public transit to relieve traffic congestion on these roads. So, the authors suggest that neither road widening NOR public transit will relieve congestion.

Also, the authors did not examine the influence of road widening on traffic volume of identified roads over time (although other studies may have done this). All they have is a correlation between lane number and traffic volume. This is a limitation to the arguments that they can make.

Of course, population, demographics, geography, and a whole litany of things will influence driving patterns in a given region. This study has the benefit that it uses are large data set that includes regions from across the US. Regardless, the effects observed in this study aren't necessarily directly relevant to Halifax, or to Canada for that matter.

So, I am not saying a single argument is right and wrong, but rather that we can approach an effective solution (or consensus) more closely if we carefully assess the evidence and go from there. Otherwise, we are doomed to argue the same points again and again and again (and have been), without approaching anything close to a solution.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by pchipman

I think you misunderstand my comment. Counterfactual referenced this study:

Duranton, Gilles, and Matthew A. Turner (2011). The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities. American Economic Review 101, 6: 2616-2652.

It used data from across the US to estimate the relationship between the number of lanes on a given road and the volume of traffic on these roads. The authors observed a proportional increase in vehicle traffic to the number of lanes on these roads. These are objective measurements - evidence. The authors suggest that widening roads will not relieve congestion. This is an argument based on the evidence provided in the study.

BUT, importantly, the authors did not observe an effect of public transit to relieve traffic congestion on these roads. So, the authors suggest that neither road widening NOR public transit will relieve congestion.

Also, the authors did not examine the influence of road widening on traffic volume of identified roads over time (although other studies may have done this). All they have is a correlation between lane number and traffic volume. This is a limitation to the arguments that they can make.

Of course, population, demographics, geography, and a whole litany of things will influence driving patterns in a given region. This study has the benefit that it uses are large data set that includes regions from across the US. Regardless, the effects observed in this study aren't necessarily directly relevant to Halifax, or to Canada for that matter.

So, I am not saying a single argument is right and wrong, but rather that we can approach an effective solution (or consensus) more closely if we carefully assess the evidence and go from there. Otherwise, we are doomed to argue the same points again and again and again (and have been), without approaching anything close to a solution.

I don't think I misunderstood you at all, I'm really not that stupid. But, you seem to be misunderstanding me. You feel that a study done by who ever, is more valid than my thoughts. What I am saying is that I do not believe the results of most studies usually done to try to prove a point to set an agenda.
Common sense tells me that if we had not built any roads from 1950 on, this city would be impassible. The evidence is clear, but you fail to recognize the fact that we are no longer a city of 75,000 people We have built our city to try to accommodate our population and growth. Naturally 450,000 people cannot move live on a road network built for 75,000 people, no matter how many we try to force onto public transit. Had we banned all cars from the road we still would not function.

[pchipman]

I agree with others who have suggested that the city needs to implement a variety of approaches in order to improve mobility across the peninsula.

Road widening is a part of the solution, but it is not THE solution.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by pchipman

I agree with others who have suggested that the city needs to implement a variety of approaches in order to improve mobility across the peninsula.

Road widening is a part of the solution, but it is not THE solution.

I quite agree but there is unlikely a 'THE' solution.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by pchipman

I agree with others who have suggested that the city needs to implement a variety of approaches in order to improve mobility across the peninsula.

Road widening is a part of the solution, but it is not THE solution.

I will repeat what I said above. (blue below) Any study that says if you widen a street more cars will use it should be ripped up for the obvious reasons. I suppose if you build a bigger ferry more people will use it. The study probably looked at traffic counts per hour and saw an increase of 10% after widening per hour. That should tell you people are home faster and not sitting on the highway idling destroying the ozone layer.

HRM makes very little effort to modernize the transportation system. We don't have HOV lanes....why? Because we are too small. How many stop lights are synchronized for better traffic flow? We could have better equipped park and ride systems. MicMac mall could be a major terminus. HRM could build a 3000 car parking garage on site and have frequent shuttles to downtown. Perhaps smaller busses in some areas would work with more frequent trips. Of all of the alternatives to congested traffic in HRM none of them will work easily or in some cases work at all. This is due to our topography, poor street grid, lack of available space, small population and poor/redundant traffic management.



To say that over time the streets will just become congested again simply means the city is growing. If you build a large apt. complex and it is sold out and more people want to move into the area you build another and another. It's all part of the infrastructure to sustain the population. If Halifax doesn't want to aggressively pursue alternate forms of transportation then street alignment is the obvious choice.

Subways are out, fast ferries are out, LTR is stalled in four decade quagmire, bike lanes are not built properly and for the most part go nowhere, there are no good walking routes, we don't have water taxis and we can't even paint our crosswalks. The taxis we do have are only allowed in certain areas thus stranding people who then give up and take their car.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by pchipman

I think you are confusing an opinion and an argument.

Counterfactual seems to be presenting an argument, as he has provided some evidence to back up his claims. You seem to be presenting an opinion, as you fail to back up your claims with evidence.

An argument and an opinion cannot be considered equally valid in a discussion.

After all, an argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition!

What...is this a five minute argument or the full hour?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Empire

To say that over time the streets will just become congested again simply means the city is growing. If you build a large apt. complex and it is sold out and more people want to move into the area you build another and another. It's all part of the infrastructure to sustain the population. If Halifax doesn't want to aggressively pursue alternate forms of transportation then street alignment is the obvious choice.

Subways are out, fast ferries are out, LTR is stalled in four decade quagmire, bike lanes are not built properly and for the most part go nowhere, there are no good walking routes, we don't have water taxis and we can't even paint our crosswalks. The taxis we do have are only allowed in certain areas thus stranding people who then give up and take their car.

All good points - I think we really need to have a serious discussion about transit (which I'm hoping the recent AG's report will help create). We have to get past this idea of 'we can't do anything' or 'we don't have the $'. There are lots of ways to find the money for projects, we just have to think differently. Someone123 pointed out a few small projects, which over time create a good BRT corridor. I posted the video of the General Manager of Planning out here in Calgary talking about Tax Increment Financing Districts and Value Capture - something that US cities use quite a bit and banks are quite keen to provide $ for.

If you haven't seen the video I mentioned, Rollin talks about those here. Maybe we need to also look at (in the future after the HST goes down) considering a sales tax? Nothing like 1% but maybe 10 cents on items over $5 or a nickle for every item over $1.00? There is also the option of looking at taxing gas with additional fees to go straight into transit? I suspect this would prove hugely unpopular, but it's a thought. So we have to start grappling with this and realizing it's not going to be easy.

As a planner, I know I drone on and on about the connection between land use planning and transportation, but that's one of the key things we can do to improve both the quality of the region (urban realm) and transit. We need to put people where the transit is and 'stack the deck'. Look at Portland Street for example - the most successful Bus Corridor in HRM. That is logically, the first place an LRT should be because the level of service and ridership would support it.

So if we make that logical conclusion - then why be fearful of the 3rd harbour crossing and use it to our advantage. Bite the bullet and build it (tunnel or bridge) and find the money to get the LRT into the core. Doesn't matter if it means tunneling into the core or if its a surface route - but bite the bullet and build it. But as you build it, rezone all the commercial sites along Portland Street for high density mixed use. Make the buildings come closer to the street, they can provide urban format retail (like the Rona concept on Robie) so that we can still have grocery stores and put all the parking in the back of the sites. Make Penhorn a Transit oriented village and now you end up with a few thousand more people, living along a rapid transit system that connects them to where they work, live and play. Even if only 50% of those people use that transit line for their work trips, that's a huge improvement.

One simple project like this, will change how people see transit function and rest assured they will want it where they live. The problem I see, is we (HRM in totality) keep thinking in small town/city frame of mind. We have to move past that. As cliche as it sounds, it's time to think big and dare to dream big.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Only to a point...
I will concede that as of the time that a road expansion opens, it does help traffic flow. I think no one disagrees with that, things move well. The problem becomes over time.

As the City grows, there are percentages that use cars, transit, walk etc. What those numbers are for HRM I don't know the exact breakdown; but I'd hazard an educated guess that car is likely over 50%. But as the city grows, while the percentages may go up or down, the volume of vehicles tends to go up and so more cars are on the road. That means that at peak times, capacity starts tightening and eventually the roads get jammed again. Keep in mind, when people complain about traffic we are talking about a 2-5 hour span of time in the day (morning/evening rush). So spending millions of $ to help cars get through an area and then the road performs super well (because it's under capacity) all other times - makes you wonder what the value is?

Keep in mind - after 5 years (typically) the road capacity reaches the clogged point again, after the road is expanded. So then you have to expand again - it's a never ending cycle.

I think we all agree that the only way forward is a combination effort and it's not as simple as expanding one road. It's a comprehensive effort of land use/transportation planning and investment.

I just curious though, if HRM grows by lets say 100,000 people in the next 30 years. We add LRT to the transit system but lets assume those rough percentages of car users stay consistent, how many extra thousands of cars will be on the same roads going to the same places? Doesn't road expansion still seem necessary regardless of better transit improvements?

It seems like agreeing that road expansion will just lead to greater congestion makes people ignore the need to fix what needs to fixed now. 25 years down the road people will say "oh I told you so" but its necessary for growth NOW.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

I just curious though, if HRM grows by lets say 100,000 people in the next 30 years. We add LRT to the transit system but lets assume those rough percentages of car users stay consistent, how many extra thousands of cars will be on the same roads going to the same places? Doesn't road expansion still seem necessary regardless of better transit improvements?

It seems like agreeing that road expansion will just lead to greater congestion makes people ignore the need to fix what needs to fixed now. 25 years down the road people will say "oh I told you so" but its necessary for growth NOW.

I don't think we can avoid road improvements - but we have to think carefully about continuous road expansion. Part of our thinking has to change and putting active transportation modes (walking, cycling, rollerblading) first. Then car pooling, transit, goods delivery and then single occupant vehicles. So you can expand road capacity, but it should be to do car pooling or transit lanes.

This way - you bulk up these dedicated lanes to give transit and carpooling a priority. Remember, it's always about choice. I (as a planner) can't tell you how to live. But I can work to give you choices in where you live - suburban, urban, wherever. But if the shift is to active modes then the importance of the single occupant vehicle, will always be last. That means that people who make choices to use their vehicle (regardless of where they live) - the consequence is that they are the lowest priority. But in order to make that shift, we have to improve mobility for all other forms.

Part of the solution ahead to improving mobility for other forms of mobility (other than single occupant vehicles) is thinking about developing complete streets, that takes all of these modes of transportation into account. I don't think I've dropped that term but this video illustrates some complete streets in NYC. Will they be the same in HRM? No - but there are ways we can implement this in a form for HRM.

Here is another video from the Ontario Planners Institute that helps illustrate complete streets.

[Antigonish]

Thanks for the response! I'm in total agreement, and I like the idea of dedicating new lanes strictly for transit. I guess I was getting the impression from the "no to road improvement crowd" that any improvements what so ever was a bad decision. It needs to be done one way or another. What exists isn't adequate enough already.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Thanks for the response! I'm in total agreement, and I like the idea of dedicating new lanes strictly for transit. I guess I was getting the impression from the "no to road improvement crowd" that any improvements what so ever was a bad decision. It needs to be done one way or another. What exists isn't adequate enough already.

Dedicating new lanes strictly for buses is a complete waste, possibly even worse than bike lanes. The lanes will be empty 99% of the time. That is hardly a smart investment.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

This is precisely my point. Road widening provides relief... but eventually just encourages more congestion. Do you drive on those routes, esp during rush hours? Traffic along Portland and connecting major streets was reasonable about 5-10 years ago. It's gotten worse and is not getting better. Same with MacDonald. Yes, a new lane instantly relieved congestion, but if you drive the bridge during rush hour, it's pretty congested and brutal. We're basically back to the way it was mid 1990s, before the extra lane.

As I said, this is the point: Often, widening a road may address congestion in the near term, but not long term. It incentivizes existing drivers to drive more, and non-drivers to start driving. This is contextual, of course. But it makes sense, and there is solid peer reviewed research supporting the conclusion.

The study is based upon a fallacious argument. People do not move to the suburbs because the roads are wider. They are already there. When they try to get into our out of the city they sit on Bayers Road, idling, stuck in traffic. To suggest that widening roads is not a long term solution is not a function of the road. It is a function of planning and growth of cities and new developments being built in areas outside the city. Currently they are widening sidewalks on Spring Garden. Is that going to result in more traffic? No. It is not a function of the channel, it is a function of the volume that needs to get to and from the area served by the channel. It is like saying dredging a river causes more water to run through it. Not so. The flow is the same, just more efficient.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

All good points - I think we really need to have a serious discussion about transit (which I'm hoping the recent AG's report will help create). We have to get past this idea of 'we can't do anything' or 'we don't have the $'. There are lots of ways to find the money for projects, we just have to think differently.

Well, the A-G report is trying to lead HRM to just the opposite conclusion. I personally think the A-G is a bit of a loon, but nevertheless, he states that Metro Transit spends $100 million annually, has a 32% fare box contribution, and that it has expanded far too much into wildly underutilized routes. He is arguing that Transit needs to become more efficient, which is fine, but in doing so he is saying that they need to get out of all of these far-flung, unused routes (*cough*PortersLake*cough*) and get a higher fare box contribution rate. That would imply less transit capacity and more need for other modes of getting into and out of the city.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The study is based upon a fallacious argument. People do not move to the suburbs because the roads are wider. They are already there. When they try to get into our out of the city they sit on Bayers Road, idling, stuck in traffic. To suggest that widening roads is not a long term solution is not a function of the road. It is a function of planning and growth of cities and new developments being built in areas outside the city. Currently they are widening sidewalks on Spring Garden. Is that going to result in more traffic? No. It is not a function of the channel, it is a function of the volume that needs to get to and from the area served by the channel. It is like saying dredging a river causes more water to run through it. Not so. The flow is the same, just more efficient.

If widening the sidewalks on Spring Garden makes it a more pleasant place to walk, then yes, I think ultimately more people will walk there (if that's what you meant). And I agree that people already live in the suburbs, but some people will be less inclined to live there if they know that their commute will be frustratingly slow. Conversely, more people will want to live there if traffic is no longer discouraging. Once these additional people live there, unless there are major changes in land use and/or transit, then more cars will be on the road.

There is also the psychological factor of the victory (road is widened) or loss (road is not widened) "for the suburbs" - this will have at least some effect on where people will want to live, because of the perception that the municipality does or does not care about a particular area.