Halifax Transit

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I totally agree and actually I generally wouldn't place most of the onus for individual transportation choices directly on the individual. We live with a society and people will choose whatever form of transportation that is the best combination of practical and affordable based on how that society is operated. And planning is exactly what it comes down to. When it's planned in a way that we legislate car access into every development and other forms of transportation are only included when we feel there's high enough demand or they "pay off" then this is going to direct people's choice. Private car access is considered "essential" so even if (especially if) it isn't considered practical to provide transit access or to make it walkable, providing auto-access and parking is considered automatic and non-negotiable.

Therefore, the result is that having a car means you can fairly easily reach any place any time, whereas with other forms of transportation you can only reach some places at some times or at best most places most times. It isn't because having a car is an inherent form of personal freedom and mobility; it's because we've designed our society in such a way to give car owners a greater degree of freedom and mobility - at the expense of other people. So naturally anyone who can afford it is basically forced to choose that option.

We have the choice to change this and to give easier transportation access to people using more efficient forms of transportation. And doing so isn't in any way taking away or reducing personal freedom. People will still have the choice to use whatever method of transportation they want and some places will still be easier to access with one form of transportation than another. It will require both building different forms of infrastructure and changing development patterns to match (such as increasing density).

Some people seem to have strange and totally mistaken ideas that suggest planning in a way that favours one mode of transportation as opposed to another is somehow akin to dictatorship or social engineering. In reality, living together in society requires planning and a certain degree of coordination regardless of how the governing body is organized. A dictatorship tells people what to do based on a single person or small group's whims. In our society it's up to elected officials to plan in a way that balances public preferences with practical constraints such as economics. They have to realize that we can only do what our society can physically afford in the long term and recognize that when something has been done a certain way for a long time and people have become accustomed to it, many will resist change due to simply inertia regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of each option. Change is more difficult (in the short term) than the status quo. The elected leaders can make their best effort to lead society in the direction they've determined is best, but cannot force it as the public is ultimately in control through elections.

But elections cannot change the physical realities of the world around us. Things that are too expensive to maintain are still going to be too costly whether or not civic leaders try to steer society in s better direction or not. Ultimately we are dictated to by the physical world around is. Shooting the messenger isn't going to change this.

Well said, and it actually coincides with my thoughts about rail transit in particular, but also other forms of transportation. Design the system well and make it work so that it will be the best choice - make people want to use it and it will be successful.

Burnside is a prime example of what you're talking about. I would never bother to use transit to go to Burnside because it is not a walkable area. The bus coverage is sparse, but even moreso once you've left the bus most of the roads don't even have sidewalks. On top of that, a good percentage of the traffic is comprised of large trucks - not the kind of traffic I want to be dodging when I'm trying to walk to a business. Crosswalks are another story, they are few and far between, and most that exist are risky at best, given the volume, type and speed of traffic in the area. In fact, I wouldn't even bicycle through there on a weekday. IIRC, it was designed in the mid to late sixties, the height of that design/planning philosophy.

Burnside is not alone as there are other areas of the city where this is evident as well.

Why would people choose to take transit and walk when it is difficult and unpleasant at best, and dangerous at worst? The answer is that most won't.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I totally agree and actually I generally wouldn't place most of the onus for individual transportation choices directly on the individual. We live with a society and people will choose whatever form of transportation that is the best combination of practical and affordable based on how that society is operated. And planning is exactly what it comes down to. When it's planned in a way that we legislate car access into every development and other forms of transportation are only included when we feel there's high enough demand or they "pay off" then this is going to direct people's choice. Private car access is considered "essential" so even if (especially if) it isn't considered practical to provide transit access or to make it walkable, providing auto-access and parking is considered automatic and non-negotiable.

Therefore, the result is that having a car means you can fairly easily reach any place any time, whereas with other forms of transportation you can only reach some places at some times or at best most places most times. It isn't because having a car is an inherent form of personal freedom and mobility; it's because we've designed our society in such a way to give car owners a greater degree of freedom and mobility - at the expense of other people. So naturally anyone who can afford it is basically forced to choose that option.

We have the choice to change this and to give easier transportation access to people using more efficient forms of transportation. And doing so isn't in any way taking away or reducing personal freedom. People will still have the choice to use whatever method of transportation they want and some places will still be easier to access with one form of transportation than another. It will require both building different forms of infrastructure and changing development patterns to match (such as increasing density).

Some people seem to have strange and totally mistaken ideas that suggest planning in a way that favours one mode of transportation as opposed to another is somehow akin to dictatorship or social engineering. In reality, living together in society requires planning and a certain degree of coordination regardless of how the governing body is organized. A dictatorship tells people what to do based on a single person or small group's whims. In our society it's up to elected officials to plan in a way that balances public preferences with practical constraints such as economics. They have to realize that we can only do what our society can physically afford in the long term and recognize that when something has been done a certain way for a long time and people have become accustomed to it, many will resist change due to simply inertia regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of each option. Change is more difficult (in the short term) than the status quo. The elected leaders can make their best effort to lead society in the direction they've determined is best, but cannot force it as the public is ultimately in control through elections.

But elections cannot change the physical realities of the world around us. Things that are too expensive to maintain are still going to be too costly whether or not civic leaders try to steer society in s better direction or not. Ultimately we are dictated to by the physical world around is. Shooting the messenger isn't going to change this.

Right. For people to really have choice, each option should be relatively equally feasible.

In large cities with sophisticated transit systems, many many people choose not to subject themselves to the expense and hassle of car ownership - because there is a more attractive option.

In Halifax, many many people choose not to subject themselves to the expense and hassle of public transportation, because a car is the more attractive option here.

(And of course in both kinds of cities, other people make other choices for various reasons.)

I drive a car. I kind of wish of I didn't need one, but Halifax is not a city where I feel I can live without one. And I know very few people outside of narrow parts of the peninsula who feel they can either.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Exactly! We need to get away from this idea that you need to be a huge muti-million person metropolis in order to support decent transit and active transportation and to shift the mode share.

[swimmer_spe]

Halifax is a victim of many issues. These issues have led to the problems that the various governments are finally starting to tackle.

To understand the problems, lets look at some history. Around 1920, the population of Halifax was about 100,000. At that time, so did Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary.

Today the populations are:
Vancouver: 603,000
Edmonton: 812,000
Calgary: 1,096,000

Halifax: 297,000 in the urban area.

In 1920, the Halifax Explosion decimated the city and killed about 2000 people. So, one part of the problem is the rapid construction to house people.

Another problem is poor planning. From downtown to Bedford is about 15km. Arguably, the harbour, except for the DND armoury, is urbanized, but only within a few kilometres of the shoreline. The real problem is if you drew a circle, 15 km diameter centred at Halifax City Hall, you would see a lot of vacant forested land. Fifteen km out on the Halifax side is Timberlea, Hatchet Lake, Harrietsfield and Herring Cove.

The most ironic problem is the success of Halifax centralizing it's workforce. The major employers (the shipping terminals, the shipyard, DND, the major government and other major offices, and universities) are all located on the peninsula. However, the peninsula does not have dense enough housing to house everyone. People with money will choose to move further out to have a house, or to have something better for housing. It is interesting, the DND not having enough parking for all personnel has actually reduced congestion and increased the use of Halifax Transit. Many of these people will use the commuter rail.

Another problem is getting off the peninsula.

Lets look a the city with the largest population, Calgary. It has many, many streets that go out of the CBD. There are 10 highways plus a ring road and an almost outer ring road that is 4 lanes or greater.

Halifax has 6 ways off the peninsula: Armdale Rotary, Highway 102, Bedford Highway, 2 bridges and a ferry. Unfortunately, only 3 of those exits; The MacKay Bridge, the Bedford Highway and Highway 102 have at least 4 lanes in each direction.

How does this get fixed?
Here are my suggestions:

1)A 10 year moratorium on subdivision and apartment buildings beyond 15km from Halifax City Hall. For single construction, have a large levee that the owner must pay. This will slow down the urban sprawl, and encourage construction closer to the city centre.

2)Commuter rail to Elmsdale. This will ease congestion. The fare should be based on a km rate. So, for example, if the fare was $0.10 a km(not saying it should be that cheap), someone travelling to Bedford would pay $1.50 (15km). Where as, someone in Elmsdale would pay $4 (40km).

3)Beaverbank to Dartmouth, both ways commuter rail. Have transfer station at Windsor Junction such that people can commute around the harbour without going over the bridges.

4) Reactivate rail to Timberlea. If the goal is to make the area close to the city centre to be as dense as possible, then, putting a rail line back in to Timberlea would help give incentive to fill in those areas. The line could be extended further as growth warrants it

5) Three tunnels under harbour. 2 tunnels for 4 lanes of road and one for 2 rail lines. This should coincide with the construction of the Circ (Highway 111) on the Halifax side from the MacKay bridge to the tunnels.

6) Move the DND rifle range. HRM should work with DND to find a better location for a replacement for the rifle range. That area could be used to build a better interchange between 6 roads meeting. Sackville Dr, and the Bedford highway, 102, 101 and the Bedford Bypass cross. Right now, even during non peak times, that area gets congested. If they built it so that Sackville Dr, and the Bedford highway was a straight run (like it is now) and the 101 and the Bedford Bypass were a straight run and that you could exit off of one and get to any of the others, the traffic would flow quite well through there. I do not know of another place where 3 through roads meet like this.

7)Rail to Harrietsfield via Herring Cove. Doing this would encourage growth in that area, like Timberlea.

8)Coal Harbour and Porters Lake rail. This would speed up travel in from out towards Porters Lake. Reactivate the line that was abandoned.

This all would see increased density within a 15km radius of the CBD. This would also slow down the sprawl.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Right. For people to really have choice, each option should be relatively equally feasible.

In large cities with sophisticated transit systems, many many people choose not to subject themselves to the expense and hassle of car ownership - because there is a more attractive option.

In Halifax, many many people choose not to subject themselves to the expense and hassle of public transportation, because a car is the more attractive option here.

(And of course in both kinds of cities, other people make other choices for various reasons.)

I drive a car. I kind of wish of I didn't need one, but Halifax is not a city where I feel I can live without one. And I know very few people outside of narrow parts of the peninsula who feel they can either.

To be fair to HFX, only a similarly narrow slice of most cities' populations can easily go car free in Canada. Even in TO, unless you're one of the 1/10th of the regional population living in the oldest parts of city, life is very...slow, without a vehicle (and depending on where you work, etc, you might need one anyway.)

I live car free on the peninsula pretty happily. My significant other DOES have a car, but we really only use it for intercity travel, not getting around within the city. (Except for occasional trips to big-box hell.) But there does seem to be a car culture here to a greater degree than necessary. I have neighbours who drive to work downtown, despite living right along major bus routes and being a 25-minute walk from Scotia Square.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

To be fair to HFX, only a similarly narrow slice of most cities' populations can easily go car free in Canada. Even in TO, unless you're one of the 1/10th of the regional population living in the oldest parts of city, life is very...slow, without a vehicle (and depending on where you work, etc, you might need one anyway.)

I live car free on the peninsula pretty happily. My significant other DOES have a car, but we really only use it for intercity travel, not getting around within the city. (Except for occasional trips to big-box hell.) But there does seem to be a car culture here to a greater degree than necessary. I have neighbours who drive to work downtown, despite living right along major bus routes and being a 25-minute walk from Scotia Square.

You have hit on yet another issue: the Big Box Stores. To bad they could not make them part of a mall that has covered walkways between them.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The most ironic problem is the success of Halifax centralizing it's workforce.

I think this is an opportunity, not a problem. Decentralized cities like LA are pretty much the poster children of traffic congestion. They also tend to have relatively poor transit service and ridership because it's harder to provide service to a network of different neighbourhoods than it is to get people in and out of a downtown core.

Halifax is actually easier to serve with transit than most metropolitan areas of its size. It just has poorer transit service than it could (actually still much better than many other North American cities) because nobody has bothered to invest in anything substantial for about 60 years. The city needs to pull the trigger and build something.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ Exactly! We need to get away from this idea that you need to be a huge muti-million person metropolis in order to support decent transit and active transportation and to shift the mode share.

Even the latest commuter rail study suffered from this obsession; it started out by talking about how Halifax would be the only city under one million in Canada with commuter rail. The corollary is that this is something super weird and ambitious. It really isn't when you look around the world, and actually even the point about Canada falls apart when you look at it. Of the sub-one-million cities in Canada, several are either studying or implementing rail transit (Kitchener, Hamilton, Quebec City, Victoria, and maybe others). Not that that really matters anyway; the project is either viable or it isn't.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think this is an opportunity, not a problem. Decentralized cities like LA are pretty much the poster children of traffic congestion. They also tend to have relatively poor transit service and ridership because it's harder to provide service to a network of different neighbourhoods than it is to get people in and out of a downtown core.

Halifax is actually easier to serve with transit than most metropolitan areas of its size. It just has poorer transit service than it could (actually still much better than many other North American cities) because nobody has bothered to invest in anything substantial for about 60 years. The city needs to pull the trigger and build something.

It is an opportunity. But, right now, it is a burden.

If each of the major employers were located in a different part of HRM, there would be less congestion on the peninsula.

Investing in it now may mean we do not make the same mistakes that could have been made years ago.

Originally Posted by someone123

Even the latest commuter rail study suffered from this obsession; it started out by talking about how Halifax would be the only city under one million in Canada with commuter rail. The corollary is that this is something super weird and ambitious. It really isn't when you look around the world, and actually even the point about Canada falls apart when you look at it. Of the sub-one-million cities in Canada, several are either studying or implementing rail transit (Kitchener, Hamilton, Quebec City, Victoria, and maybe others). Not that that really matters anyway; the project is either viable or it isn't.

When Edmonton built it's LRT, it was the smallest city in North America that built railed transit.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is an opportunity. But, right now, it is a burden.

If each of the major employers were located in a different part of HRM, there would be less congestion on the peninsula.

True, but less congestion doesn't mean a better city. The model of various employment hubs works well in mega metropolises, but Halifax is still small enough that I think we can still focus on building up our downtown as our one main hub. Certainly downtown hasn't come close to achieving its potential yet, and I don't think spreading employment and commercial activity more around the region will have any benefit except reducing congestion. It won't provide the critical mass of density that makes great urban cores exciting, dynamic, inspiring places to do business. (Sorry for the gushy adjectives.) And it will only render downtown a duller, deader place.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I don't think spreading employment and commercial activity more around the region will have any benefit except reducing congestion.

It might not even reduce congestion, because transit would be less effective and people would need to travel around more, so they'd need to drive more. The peninsula also happens to be central to the metro area, so you've got to go through it if you want to, say, get from Bayers Lake to Dartmouth efficiently (which is why putting regional infrastructure in areas like Dartmouth Crossing sucks).

As an aside, a lot of this stuff is counterintuitive because people just look at slow moving traffic and assume it's bad, but really they should be looking at overall commute times. In a denser city traffic tends to be worse but you don't need to travel as far because more destinations are (by definition) closer. You pass more stuff walking along one block downtown than you do spending 10 minutes driving through a subdivision in Hammonds Plains.

I think transit, with a bit of encouragement of active transportation where it is viable, is the only real way to make the city more liveable and easier to get around in.

[Nilan8888]

To be fair to HFX, only a similarly narrow slice of most cities' populations can easily go car free in Canada. Even in TO, unless you're one of the 1/10th of the regional population living in the oldest parts of city, life is very...slow, without a vehicle (and depending on where you work, etc, you might need one anyway.)

I live car free on the peninsula pretty happily. My significant other DOES have a car, but we really only use it for intercity travel, not getting around within the city. (Except for occasional trips to big-box hell.) But there does seem to be a car culture here to a greater degree than necessary. I have neighbours who drive to work downtown, despite living right along major bus routes and being a 25-minute walk from Scotia Square.

I think I'd take issue with your designation of 'even' in Toronto. Halifax has planning problems as laid out previously, but much of these have to do with the inevitable geography. The good news is that there's still space for infrastructure that was largely dug out for WWII. A lot of that has been stripped away or gone unused, but the designated space for it is essentially still there. Halifax might not be particularly well planned since then, but I think most of the errors are not particularly hard to reverse.

Please Halifax, don't model Toronto transit. Model Montreal, or Calgary, or London or New York. Or pretty much anywhere else.

When I last lived in Halifax... seven years ago... I also lived and worked on the peninsula, car free. It was affordable for my job, and I think a lot of people could have gotten by that way since the job market was a lot better than it had been 20 or 30 years earlier from that point.

Toronto, by contrast, works like this: you either live downtown or on a subway line, or you NEED a car. You can try the buses, which, yes, can run more frequently than Halifax depending on the line, but those are not any more or less reliable than the Halifax counterparts.

And Toronto is woefully under-represented by subway lines. It's very much a car-driven city. It has perhaps one of the worst subway systems of any major city that I've seen: it has only 2 real subway lines. Plus one partial line of about 5 stops. And then a light rail line. but those two latter lines are only in the eastern half of the city, and don't even link up. There's still no rail connection to the main airport, and word is when that's done, it's going to be crazy expensive. And what happens when one of your subway lines goes down? I've experienced that in London, and it didn't even register as a minor inconvenience because of all the redundant backup connections. In Toronto, it completely screws up your commute as they rush to get shuttle buses up and running... which you shouldn't bother to take because by the time you get through the crowds to get on one an hour or so later, the subway line will be back up. Probably.

In other words, if you don't live downtown, along young street or Bloor street or a certain portion of sheppard (and that's a lot of the city)... heck, transit-wise, you might as well live in Halifax. At least Halifax's topography is nicer to look at as you're standing there waiting for the bus. Toronto might have nicer looking buildings overall, but you probably won't be able to see them from where you're standing.

I was mildly annoyed by Halifax planning, which at times seems somewhat inept. But in my experience, Toronto planning and governance is downright criminal, and seems to have been so long before I arrived.

Sorry, this is not to praise Halifax or slam big cities as much as it is to specifically slam Toronto and it's clown-car transit approach, which is entirely due to poor planning since Toronto's geography is MUCH simpler than Halifax's. I went to London, England not so long ago and their subway system was a marvel, comparatively. I am sure Calgary, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg have their houses in much better order. It wouldn't be too hard.

(The bad news for Halifax is... global climate change. Still, it'll be easier for Halifax than New Orleans or Miami. Or, if the maps I've seen of rising sea level are accurate, even Montreal)

[Nouvellecosse]

Yes, even though Toronto's CMA has a greater proportion of commutes by transit than Hfx, it's still far from a poster child in that regard. It's doing better than a number of NA examples but in an international sense, not so much.

But although Toronto needs work in terms of bringing higher order transit to more parts of the city and metro area, it isn't really that bad. People don't need to live right along a subway line in order to have it benefit them, as long as they're within a reasonable catchment zone, like a 10-15 minute bus ride which may be several km. And the way the population is distributed, there are many people who are. There are also many people near a streetcar line in the inner city which is a higher order of transit and although slower than metro or commuter rail, the distances being covered aren't that huge either.

Unless a city is very dense it's pretty expensive to have a rail transit line within walking distance to everyone. If we manage to bring a subway/metro line or decent frequency commuter rail line within 3-4km of everyone in the GTA I think we'll be doing ok.

In Toronto's case, one of the biggest issues is capacity. There is no lack of people with access to the subway and streetcars networks and parts of the systems are too crowded. The new rolling stock are helping to relieve the issue on the streetcar lines but on the subway although rolling stock and signaling upgrades are helping, another line is really needed. Money has also been committed to upgrading and electrifying GO so I think Toronto will be in decent shape going forward.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In Toronto's case, one of the biggest issues is capacity. There is no lack of people with access to the subway and streetcars networks and parts of the systems are too crowded. The new rolling stock are helping to relieve the issue on the streetcar lines but on the subway although rolling stock and signaling upgrades are helping, another line is really needed. Money has also been committed to upgrading and electrifying GO so I think Toronto will be in decent shape going forward.

Capacity is a big issue, but I'm not sure it will be alleviated by the new streetcars. The adjacent populations are also going up, and the new capacity isn't that much greater--they'll also be running the new cars LESS often, which seems to entirely negate the benefit of added capacity.

The other big issue there is the fact that the catchment areas around the subway aren't bad for many people, but hundreds of thousands of people--including most of the poorer residents in Scarborough and Etobicoke--are well outside those zones. A transit commute from Scarborough to downtown, factoring in distance, transfers, and overcrowding, is a little bit of hell twice every day. It's just as bad or worse as transit from Cole Harbour or Sackville to downtown Halifax. Ironically, those even further out, along the GO line, have an easier commute than the inner suburban dwellers.

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

In 1920, the Halifax Explosion decimated the city and killed about 2000 people. So, one part of the problem is the rapid construction to house people.

December 6, 1917, 9:05AM.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Capacity is a big issue, but I'm not sure it will be alleviated by the new streetcars. The adjacent populations are also going up, and the new capacity isn't that much greater--they'll also be running the new cars LESS often, which seems to entirely negate the benefit of added capacity.

The other big issue there is the fact that the catchment areas around the subway aren't bad for many people, but hundreds of thousands of people--including most of the poorer residents in Scarborough and Etobicoke--are well outside those zones. A transit commute from Scarborough to downtown, factoring in distance, transfers, and overcrowding, is a little bit of hell twice every day. It's just as bad or worse as transit from Cole Harbour or Sackville to downtown Halifax. Ironically, those even further out, along the GO line, have an easier commute than the inner suburban dwellers.

The new streetcars combined with the difference in service levels has a net capacity increase of 30%.

[W.Sobchak]

This is from 2005 and Korea, but has some valid points.

http://www.easts.info/on-line/proceedings_05/136.pdf

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The new streetcars combined with the difference in service levels has a net capacity increase of 30%.

Really? Wow. I wonder how they've arrived at that metric. The new cars only carry 25% more people than the current articulated cars, and will have less frequent service. I guess the 30% increase includes the fact that the new cars will have almost double the capacity of the non-articulated cars that run during off-peak times, but that whole approach sounds backwards. Capacity was never the issue during off-peak times; it was always frequency, which will now be worse. And during rush hour, even when they ran articulated cars, the problem was capacity, and that will only be slightly improved during rush hour. Minor capacity increase during rush hour, when capacity is the problem, and diminished frequency during off-peak times, when frequency is the problem.

Man, I'm incredibly glad I no longer have to deal with the TTC every day. Not that HFX Transit is better, but I rarely actually need to use it due to the compact nature of the peninsula.

[ILoveHalifax]

Even the urban planners cannot understand the urban planners.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Really? Wow. I wonder how they've arrived at that metric. The new cars only carry 25% more people than the current articulated cars, and will have less frequent service. I guess the 30% increase includes the fact that the new cars will have almost double the capacity of the non-articulated cars that run during off-peak times, but that whole approach sounds backwards. Capacity was never the issue during off-peak times; it was always frequency, which will now be worse. And during rush hour, even when they ran articulated cars, the problem was capacity, and that will only be slightly improved during rush hour. Minor capacity increase during rush hour, when capacity is the problem, and diminished frequency during off-peak times, when frequency is the problem.

Man, I'm incredibly glad I no longer have to deal with the TTC every day. Not that HFX Transit is better, but I rarely actually need to use it due to the compact nature of the peninsula.

Only about 1/4 of the old streetcars were the longer articulated ones and as a result even in rush hour most routes were dominated by the standard cars. The artics were mainly on 501 Queen.

[TheNovaScotian]

Not sure if this has been posted up yet but worth the read.
It's the staff report on Commuter Rail, they need to know how important it is to get started on reactivating all the ROI's.


http://www.halifax.ca/transit/documents/CommuterRailPresentationSlides.pdf