Halifax Transit

[curnhalio]

Aren't there also the water pressure considerations of building a tunnel so close to the harbour without going under it? I think that's why there are parking towers along the waterfront instead of underground facilities.

Given the poisonous working relationship between the city and CN, I think any new rail infrastructure will have to be built from scratch, independent of the current rail network, which almost renders a Scotia Square-VIA terminal connector moot.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by Hali87

How much more would it cost to tunnel in Halifax compared to other cities? Would it be the most expensive tunnel per km in North America? The world? Does anyone actually know, for a fact, that it would be prohibitively expensive, or is this just an assumption that we (constantly) throw around?

There are apparently km's of tunnels under the peninsula (which got a lot of attention during the harbour solutions project), including one that allegedly crosses between Halifax and Dartmouth. There's also the rail cut. Obviously at some point it was not prohibitively expensive to tunnel/dig in Halifax. Why is it so now?

Most expensive in NA? No idea. But Halifax does have some unique terrain challenges when it comes to digging. Of course it could be done if money is no object, but money is an object here. We dont have $1B or even half that for a tunnel. We need to maximize what we get for whatever investment is made. That means it has to happen on grade, at least for now.

Comparing a transit tunnel in Halifax to things like the Gotthard Base Tunnel is not really a fair comparison. The Gotthard will function on a very heavily traveled traveled routes for freight and passengers in Europe. And the current infrastructure is maxed out. Its the equivalent to the Chunnel.

"The route over the Gotthard Pass (or through its tunnels) is one of the most important passages through the Alps on the north-south axis. Traffic has increased more than tenfold since 1980 and the existing tunnels are at their capacity limits."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

[Nouvellecosse]

Perhaps we can make Barrington into a transit and pedestrian thoroughfare. We could have tram-train vehicles come up from the rail corridor in order to get to Scotia terminal. It could use diesel vehicles like the Stadler GTW in use on the NJ transit River Line to save on electrification cost and to avoid the conflict electrification could cause with freight. Obviously not as good as a totally grade separated corridor downtown but makes a better balance with the costs. I don't think Barrington is really a huge automobile thoroughfare anyway is it? It's narrow, lots of traffic lights and pedestrians, buses, etc. Not very good for cars as it is.

[someone123]

My point with the Switzerland example isn't that that's what should be built in Halifax, it's that the state of the art has moved far beyond what people in Halifax tend to discuss. The scale of public works in other places is also much larger, even on a per-capita basis, than what people consider possible in Halifax. Halifax is also far behind the times in terms of the transit vehicles and technologies that tend to be discussed. Basically, it's always 1982 in NS it seems, at least when it comes to transportation. $1B will always be scary and until the end of time the dream will be to reinstate 1970's-era passenger rail.

This wasn't always so. Around 1900 the city built a rail line through kilometers of supposedly difficult to deal with rock, and in the 1950's the city built one of the largest suspension bridges around. It's hard to imagine analogous projects happening today.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

My point with the Switzerland example isn't that that's what should be built in Halifax, it's that the state of the art has moved far beyond what people in Halifax tend to discuss. The scale of public works in other places is also much larger, even on a per-capita basis, than what people consider possible in Halifax. Halifax is also far behind the times in terms of the transit vehicles and technologies that tend to be discussed. Basically, it's always 1982 in NS it seems, at least when it comes to transportation. $1B will always be scary and until the end of time the dream will be to reinstate 1970's-era passenger rail.

This wasn't always so. Around 1900 the city built a rail line through kilometers of supposedly difficult to deal with rock, and in the 1950's the city built one of the largest suspension bridges around. It's hard to imagine analogous projects happening today.

Excellent points! We as a city seem to have lost the ability to dream big. The rail cut you mention is a good example. It needed to be done, so it was done. The Halifax Master Plan from 1945 shows that we still had "it" then, and arguably the Harbour Drive project from the sixties displayed a similar desire to dream big (regardless of one's opinion on its eventual effect had it been allowed to be completed).

Then, it seems things started to fall apart in the '70s and '80s.

For some reason we lost the foresight to realize that we sometimes need to invest large amounts in the present to create a benefit that will actually be amortized over decades (or centuries, in some cases) - that we need to start the process by "thinking big" now - to look at the "big picture" and imagine where we would really like the city to be in 50 or 100 years, then set our goals and go for it. Even if we personally won't live long enough to realize the dream in its entirety, our future generations will be able to benefit from the efforts we expend now. They will never have a platform to build on if we don't first build that platform for them - that's how it's supposed to work.

I'm hoping the "dry" period was a sort of sabbatical, where we examined the mistakes of our past in order to move forward in a better, more deliberate path to future. I'm really hoping that is the case, future history will reveal if it is.

All that said, in order to accomplish these lofty goals, we first need to get our heads out of the sand and take a look around to see what could be.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

My point with the Switzerland example isn't that that's what should be built in Halifax, it's that the state of the art has moved far beyond what people in Halifax tend to discuss. The scale of public works in other places is also much larger, even on a per-capita basis, than what people consider possible in Halifax. Halifax is also far behind the times in terms of the transit vehicles and technologies that tend to be discussed. Basically, it's always 1982 in NS it seems, at least when it comes to transportation. $1B will always be scary and until the end of time the dream will be to reinstate 1970's-era passenger rail.

This wasn't always so. Around 1900 the city built a rail line through kilometers of supposedly difficult to deal with rock, and in the 1950's the city built one of the largest suspension bridges around. It's hard to imagine analogous projects happening today.

I can't speak for the west coast, but the troubling thing to me is that this seems to afflict western culture broadly. The late 19th and early 20th centuries seem to have been the right time for drastically ambitious public-works projects. Today, timidity is the rule.

A classic Canadian example is Toronto's Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct, built in 1915-18 to have a railway trestle for a subway--which wasn't built until 1966. But the city's commissioner of public works at the time, R.C. Harris, envisioned when this might be needed, and convinced the city council of the time to pay for it. Can we even imagine a Canadian city ponying up today for a hypothetical piece of infrastructure for a future generation?

Another relatively visionary project would be the Calgary/Edmonton light-rail lines, started in the late 70s, among the last ambitious infrastructure projects (non-automobile related) in those cities. Maybe an Expo 67 hangover, when Canada was still dreaming big?

I agree that Nova Scotians' perception of being especially hard-up and debt-burdened adds yet another layer of uncertainty and unwillingness to invest, though. The "we can't afford nice things" mentality is especially prevalent here. The no-vision thing, sadly, seems to be all over.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by someone123

My point with the Switzerland example isn't that that's what should be built in Halifax, it's that the state of the art has moved far beyond what people in Halifax tend to discuss. The scale of public works in other places is also much larger, even on a per-capita basis, than what people consider possible in Halifax. Halifax is also far behind the times in terms of the transit vehicles and technologies that tend to be discussed. Basically, it's always 1982 in NS it seems, at least when it comes to transportation. $1B will always be scary and until the end of time the dream will be to reinstate 1970's-era passenger rail.

This wasn't always so. Around 1900 the city built a rail line through kilometers of supposedly difficult to deal with rock, and in the 1950's the city built one of the largest suspension bridges around. It's hard to imagine analogous projects happening today.

How much debt do we take on? 1B? 2B? in order to prove we still "think big" whatever that means.

We do need to look at rail and invest in LRT IMHO. But we need to do it practically. Spend $0.5B on a tunnel or spend the same on \ modern LRT system with an intermodal terminal on the Cogswell lands? What is the best return on investment? A tunnel, unless absolutely necessary seems like a waste.

Im certainly not advocating digging the old Budd Railliners out of retirement and running them to Bedford in an effort to save cash as some seem to be. I want a modern, efficient, WIDELY SPREAD, fast rail system not something bargain basement that nobody will use so that the "I told you so's" can have their day in the sun.

The railcut while impressive was made in the days of cheap labour and a cheap price was put on a mans life. There was also a conspicuous lack of NIMBYS then too. Plus, it was an open cut as opposed to the proposed tunnel. Could it be done today? Sure, if there was government will to force it through over the opposition. Would it be as cheap as it was back then even after inflation? No way.

I do agree that tunnel tech has come a long way, but its still an incredibly expensive way to cover distance.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I can't speak for the west coast, but the troubling thing to me is that this seems to afflict western culture broadly. The late 19th and early 20th centuries seem to have been the right time for drastically ambitious public-works projects. Today, timidity is the rule.

A classic Canadian example is Toronto's Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct, built in 1915-18 to have a railway trestle for a subway--which wasn't built until 1966. But the city's commissioner of public works at the time, R.C. Harris, envisioned when this might be needed, and convinced the city council of the time to pay for it. Can we even imagine a Canadian city ponying up today for a hypothetical piece of infrastructure for a future generation?

Another relatively visionary project would be the Calgary/Edmonton light-rail lines, started in the late 70s, among the last ambitious infrastructure projects (non-automobile related) in those cities. Maybe an Expo 67 hangover, when Canada was still dreaming big?

I agree that Nova Scotians' perception of being especially hard-up and debt-burdened adds yet another layer of uncertainty and unwillingness to invest, though. The "we can't afford nice things" mentality is especially prevalent here. The no-vision thing, sadly, seems to be all over.

Well, if only HRM could do that.

Remember the single lane access to the Mackay Bridge on the Halifax side? They wasted money building it, and then tearing it down.

HRM, and all major cities in Canada needs to look forward. Why build a bridge 2 lanes, when 4 lanes is what is going to be needed? Why build a highway through a narrow strip of land, when in the future, that will not allow it to expand?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by scooby074

"think big" whatever that means.

FWIW, "think big" means looking at the big picture. Looking beyond what's in front of your face and envisioning large projects that are an investment into the future, that may cost a lot of money now, but will have a long-lasting effect on improving life for the citizens of the city. And, will allow future generations to have something to build upon or improve as new technologies and urban philosophies change or come available. Your rail system is a good example of this.

I was going to bring up how safety and environmental regulations have changed since the rail cut was put in, but then I decided it would be non-important information as new technologies have changed the way things like this are done. Now we can do bigger things, but more safely and with less impact on the environment.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by scooby074

How much debt do we take on? 1B? 2B? in order to prove we still "think big" whatever that means.

That's a very tricky question because it's often easier to calculate the cost of doing something than the cost of not doing it. It seems to be common occurrence that a lack of investment and forward thinking leads to big expensive problems. Millions or billions lost to traffic congestion for instance. Yet often times when things are discussed in public or presented by the media, an exact figure like "$1.5 billion" is presented as the cost of doing it, while something vague like "Will help ease congestion and reduce commute times" is presented as the benefit. The monetary cost attracts all the attention and all people end up talking about is the cost of doing it as if it was some sort of fully optional luxury, while the cost of not doing it not acknowledged.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That's a very tricky question because it's often easier to calculate the cost of doing something than the cost of not doing it. It seems to be common occurrence that a lack of investment and forward thinking leads to big expensive problems. Millions or billions lost to traffic congestion for instance. Yet often times when things are discussed in public or presented by the media, an exact figure like "$1.5 billion" is presented as the cost of doing it, while something vague like "Will help ease congestion and reduce commute times" is presented as the benefit. The monetary cost attracts all the attention and all people end up talking about is the cost of doing it as if it was some sort of fully optional luxury, while the cost of not doing it not acknowledged.

It costs money to leave land vacant. It costs money to not extend roads and rail further.

The various government organizations need to come up with plans, and then, they need to plan for them. This means allocating land for it. This means maintaining ROW, even if it is now a trail.

Just think about all the rail trails in HRM. Think what would happen if they were reactivated and trains returned to them. The problem becomes when parts of the former routes, or parts of the future routes are not available.

Dream big. What will the RM need when the population reaches 500,000? What about 750,000? 1,000,000? etc.

The current road network is not enough for the population now. They should prepare to build the third crossing. They should look at replacing the old bridge with something that can handle 4 lanes of road traffic and 2 rail lines.

The problem now is, with the current traffic problems, the buses are stuck in it too.

Dream big. Build a tunnel to get a train to Scotia Square. Build a tunnel under the harbour. Reactivate the old rail lines.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That's a very tricky question because it's often easier to calculate the cost of doing something than the cost of not doing it. It seems to be common occurrence that a lack of investment and forward thinking leads to big expensive problems. Millions or billions lost to traffic congestion for instance. Yet often times when things are discussed in public or presented by the media, an exact figure like "$1.5 billion" is presented as the cost of doing it, while something vague like "Will help ease congestion and reduce commute times" is presented as the benefit. The monetary cost attracts all the attention and all people end up talking about is the cost of doing it as if it was some sort of fully optional luxury, while the cost of not doing it not acknowledged.

I agree, its a tricky question.... There are lots of fringe costs as you mention to consider. And its way easier to be "negative" than authorize new spending and be "Bold".

Infrastructure costs big, no question; and it's a necessary cost. Millions in bridges and repairs? No question. It's a necessary cost. My only issue is return on that major investment and maximizing the funds we have. If a tunnel is the ONLY way, so be it.

To clarify, Im 100% pro rail, both far reaching commuter (Truro, Windsor) and Streetcar on urban streets.

We should be maintaining existing ROWs as ROWs. Can you imagine what will happen if/when we try to convert some of these Rail to Trails back to rail? It will be a NIMBY shitstorm of epic proportions. Being pragmatic, I d have no problem saying that Rail, on that now Trail, would benefit 1000's per day vs the 10 or so that walk it, so suck it up NIMBYs I guess its a good thing Im not a politician IMHO we should never have gone down the Rail-Trail road.

[Nouvellecosse]

In fairness though, the couple of times I took Metro X with my bike out to Tantallon and used the the rail to trails route to bike back, I encountered more than 10 people per km of travel , and it only took me about an hour. So the trail definitely isn't poorly used in the summer. Not sure about winter, but motorized recreational vehicles like ATVs and ski-doos are permitted on it.

[Nouvellecosse]

Btw is everyone going to the commuter rail meeting today in Bedford?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Btw is everyone going to the commuter rail meeting today in Bedford?

I believe it's tomorrow evening and I was planning on going but have a conflicting appointment. I hope if somebody from here attends they will post about it.

http://bedfordsackvilleobserver.ca/2015/02/23/commuter-rail-findings-up-for-public-discussion/

http://www.thelaker.ca/stories.asp?id=6948

Meeting scheduled for commuter rail
BEDFORD: The long awaited public meeting to discuss the possibility of bring forth Commuter Rail into the Fall River, Windsor Junction, Enfield, Sackville, and Bedford areas has been pinned down.
It will take place on Feb. 26 with an open house-style format from 5-8 p.m. at Sunnyside Mall in Bedford, in an open store at the Shoppers Drug Mart end of the mall.
“The Open House style allows people to just drop in, walk around and see booths info with various info and results of the Commuter Rail study,” said Councillor Barry Dalrymple. “There will be multiple formats and opportunity for residents to give their opinions on what this can look like.”
He said for Commuter Rail to become for than just a “dream in the night” residents need to let their voices be heard to Halifax Transit and HRM.
“We need a large response and number of people showing up from District 1,” he said. “This is one of the pieces to fixing traffic issues in the Fall River area and every single person who has ever emailed, called, or talked about traffic absolutely has to be there.
“There is no excuse for residents from this area not to be there for at least a half an hour during this open house. A failure to show up will send a clear message to Metro Transit and to HRM that there really aren’t any traffic issues in the area.”

[Nouvellecosse]

Yes it's tomorrow, sorry.

[scooby074]

A good hypothetical written by Murray Metherall (of CREST) in the Chronicle Herald about a future Commuter Rail commute. He sells it pretty well and he addresses one idea for getting rid of the container traffic. Living the dream

"Be bold and imagine. It’s another wet and miserable Monday morning. You have left your car at the park and ride, or your spouse has dropped you off to catch the 7 a.m. commuter train from Windsor Junction to the CN Station, some 25 minutes away.

You grab a coffee and paper and settle into your seat to read your email or just look out the window at vehicles fighting the traffic. "

More here: http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1271340-train-your-sights-on-a-smoother-halifax-commute

Too bad that the CH used an ancient pic of an old railliner to illustrate it as opposed to something modern like a Bombardier Talent.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by scooby074

A good hypothetical written by Murray Metherall (of CREST) in the Chronicle Herald about a future Commuter Rail commute. He sells it pretty well and he addresses one idea for getting rid of the container traffic. Living the dream


More here: http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1271340-train-your-sights-on-a-smoother-halifax-commute

Why get rid of the container traffic? The 2 terminals provide the reason that the rail lines still exist. Container traffic and commuter rail traffic can coexist.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why get rid of the container traffic? The 2 terminals provide the reason that the rail lines still exist. Container traffic and commuter rail traffic can coexist.

He suggested moving the container traffic onto rail as opposed to the current situation of hauling it down Barrington

Second last paragraph
"One more thing you notice now in downtown Halifax, whether walking to work or living in a waterfront condo, is how quiet the streets are. There are no container trucks barrelling by. Where did they go if the container pier is still there? Containers are now shuttled from Halterm by rail to an inland terminal and there transferred onto trucks to complete their journey. "

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by scooby074

He suggested moving the container traffic onto rail as opposed to the current situation of hauling it down Barrington

Second last paragraph
"One more thing you notice now in downtown Halifax, whether walking to work or living in a waterfront condo, is how quiet the streets are. There are no container trucks barrelling by. Where did they go if the container pier is still there? Containers are now shuttled from Halterm by rail to an inland terminal and there transferred onto trucks to complete their journey. "

OHHHHHHHHH

Then,yes, I agree. Container traffic should not be allowed on any city streets. There should be somewhere, near the highway that allows the on and off loading of containers to transfer to trucks.