Rail-based Transit Discussion

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

It would be nice if the NS government would start thinking like this:

Hamilton to get a new LRT and GO Train station

Exactly my thoughts when I saw it on the news last night.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Exactly my thoughts when I saw it on the news last night.

I wouldn't bet on it, for three reasons:

1. Rapid transit is simply not financially viable outside of Halifax, and not really needed. (With the exception of connections between towns, which are woefully lacking right now).

2. Our current government, and most NS governments for that matter, is unhealthily obsessed with balancing the budget as the yardstick of government success. Even if it means cutting worthwhile expenditures (hence the film tax-credit fiasco). Funding transit which will mostly benefit Halifax is a huge vote loser anywhere outside the city. (Another reason why I' completely fine with the population continuing to be concentrated in the capital--we need the leverage in the legislature.)

3. This Ontario funding isn't as amazing as it looks--it's more about playing catch-up after decades of under-investment, than building some visionary new system. It also comes after a decade-plus of very loud public complaining about the horrible state of the province's transportation infrastructure (falling-down expressways, pitiful urban transit systems, worsening congestion, etc). As one of North America's most important metropolitan regions, the increasingly obsolete transit infrastructure in the GTHA has started to become a major threat to the future viability of the metro region and the province. They're at the point where they can no longer afford not to do this.

We can't wait for the government to decide it's a good idea. It took years of op-ed columns, public complaints, economists weighing in on the necessity of transit, etc, before this happened in Ontario. if we want funding for improved, multi-modal transit in HRM, it's time to start making the case NOW, in any way possible.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I wouldn't bet on it, for three reasons:

1. Rapid transit is simply not financially viable outside of Halifax, and not really needed. (With the exception of connections between towns, which are woefully lacking right now).

2. Our current government, and most NS governments for that matter, is unhealthily obsessed with balancing the budget as the yardstick of government success. Even if it means cutting worthwhile expenditures (hence the film tax-credit fiasco). Funding transit which will mostly benefit Halifax is a huge vote loser anywhere outside the city. (Another reason why I' completely fine with the population continuing to be concentrated in the capital--we need the leverage in the legislature.)

3. This Ontario funding isn't as amazing as it looks--it's more about playing catch-up after decades of under-investment, than building some visionary new system. It also comes after a decade-plus of very loud public complaining about the horrible state of the province's transportation infrastructure (falling-down expressways, pitiful urban transit systems, worsening congestion, etc). As one of North America's most important metropolitan regions, the increasingly obsolete transit infrastructure in the GTHA has started to become a major threat to the future viability of the metro region and the province. They're at the point where they can no longer afford not to do this.

We can't wait for the government to decide it's a good idea. It took years of op-ed columns, public complaints, economists weighing in on the necessity of transit, etc, before this happened in Ontario. if we want funding for improved, multi-modal transit in HRM, it's time to start making the case NOW, in any way possible.

Good post. I especially agree with point 2.

On point 3, I think that we also need to play catch-up after decades of under-funding. Even the commuter rail proposal using existing rail lines is a step in the right direction.

[OldDartmouthMark]

With the change in federal government comes a promise to drastically increase spending on infrastructure. Any chance that this could filter down to finally get some kind of commuter rail in Halifax?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastructure-deficits-1.3205535

Trudeau, making a campaign stop in Oakville, Ont. Thursday morning, said over the next decade the Liberals would spend $125 billion on new infrastructure investment — about twice the amount the Conservatives have committed.

Investments would focus on three areas: public transit, social infrastructure such as affordable housing and seniors centres and "green" projects like clean energy infrastructure.

[Dmajackson]

Assuming spending gets spread according to population that means Nova Scotia will get $3.25 billion. That's plenty to fund entry-level commuter rail. I'd put the Burnside Expressway as more likely especially if Geoff Regan gets a "front-row" role in government. Investment in some of NS's green energy is likely as well. Speeding up the tidal power research would be huge.

Time will tell if the fed's are willing to step in and help us build mass-transit but having a prominent Liberal person representing the community most likely to benefit from it definitely helps.

[MalcolmTucker]

Most federal funds flow through the provinces, so having a fully baked plan ready for the province is a good idea.

$19.7 billion in addition to transit over 10 years, $5.65 in the first mandate. This is in addition to the planned Public Transit Fund spending of $1.75 billion in the existing first mandate (Harper's plan), and an additional $6 billion thereafter.

So, if you divide it equally amongst Canadian CMAs by population (and it won't be exact, since some centres that do have transit aren't on the list), Halifax gets a 1.67% share.

So, $123.58 million over 4 years, and $335 million over the following 6.

[Drybrain]

Yesterday, council discussed the staff report suggesting that commuter rail isn't financial viable. Turns out that the staff report actually puts fare recovery in the low-middle of the pack for North American systems:



So "not viable" is really a judgement call. And that's without looking at residential intensification along the route and other revenue sources.

There seemed to be a lot of support for continuing to look into the idea, from both urban and suburban councillors. They commissioned a new report to investigate the cost compared to other forms of transport and commute-improvement.

Dalrymple, who I usually find little to agree with on, was pretty eloquent in defense of the idea that it was a better, faster commute solution than widening roads into suburban areas, even if it is more expensive.

Savage had some good comments too, saying that finances can't be the only consideration when debating rail's merits--basically saying that this is about moving goods and people around the city-region in more effectively. Like all transit, it's a subsidy to promote economic growth.

They plan to to make a more final decision by April.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yesterday, council discussed the staff report suggesting that commuter rail isn't financial viable. Turns out that the staff report actually puts fare recovery in the low-middle of the pack for North American systems:



So "not viable" is really a judgement call. And that's without looking at residential intensification along the route and other revenue sources.

There seemed to be a lot of support for continuing to look into the idea, from both urban and suburban councillors. They commissioned a new report to investigate the cost compared to other forms of transport and commute-improvement.

Dalrymple, who I usually find little to agree with on, was pretty eloquent in defense of the idea that it was a better, faster commute solution than widening roads into suburban areas, even if it is more expensive.

Savage had some good comments too, saying that finances can't be the only consideration when debating rail's merits--basically saying that this is about moving goods and people around the city-region in more effectively. Like all transit, it's a subsidy to promote economic growth.

They plan to to make a more final decision by April.

Too bad the WCE, GO and AMT were not in there.

[MalcolmTucker]

GO is in the 80s.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Too bad the WCE, GO and AMT were not in there.

GO actually has one of the highest farebox recoveries in the world. TTC as well. Both are in the 70s.

The only reason the TTC has such a high farebox recovery is because it's overcrowded, out of date, and puny compared to the size of the city, due to massive under-investment by the province of Ontario and, to a lesser degree, the city. And maintenance is atrocious. (Example: In 2009, the TTC started shutting down the Yonge subway north of Eglinton two hours early every night, because the tunnel was falling apart and needed fixing. It was supposed to be done within 18 months. Six years later, the early shutdown is still happening every night, with no end in sight.)

Lest I sound all negative, GO Transit is a pretty good service.

[swimmer_spe]

What about the AMT and WCE?

[MalcolmTucker]

From The Vancouver Sun, 26 July 2006, so take it as you may:

Translink director Joe Trasolini said the 2002 deal with CPR has enabled West Coast to post one of the best cost-recovery ratios across Greater Vancouver's regional transit system.
...

System-wide, Translink recovered 56.29 per cent of its costs through the collection of fares. West Coast cost recovery was 69.72 per cent. The lowest achiever among mainstream services is Coast Mountain Bus at 51.9 per cent; Skytrain is best, recovering 100 per cent of its operating costs.

[Nouvellecosse]

I think it's a fair to say all Canadian commuter rail are pretty strong in this regard and that's probably why they weren't included in the comparison graph. They wanted to compare to systems that would actually be in some way comparable in this this metric.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think it's a fair to say all Canadian commuter rail are pretty strong in this regard and that's probably why they weren't included in the comparison graph. They wanted to compare to systems that would actually be in some way comparable in this this metric.

So, the other 3 working systems in the country are less comparable? I smell BS. They have New York's on there for petes sake!

[Nouvellecosse]

Less comparable in terms of farebox recovery ratio, yes.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Less comparable in terms of farebox recovery ratio, yes.

So, a city with the same population of Canada is more comparable?

[Nouvellecosse]

I'm not sure why the concept would be difficult to understand. A comparison of systems based on farebox recovery ratio would have little to do with the city or the other details of the system and would be relevant mostly in terms of return on investment. The feasibility study was meant to determine whether or not such a system would be worth the investment in terms of initial capital and operational costs, so comparing systems with similar farebox recovery ratios would be helpful.

[Keith P.]

Trudeau is currently in pandering mode, making all kinds of statements for how wonderful he is going to be to various groups. It might be timely for HRM to write him a letter and hold a flashy press conference about it asking for megabucks commuter rail/transit/roadway funding.

[swimmer_spe]

I wonder, if the new government gave Halifax $100 million to improve transit infrastructure, what would it be spent on?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Trudeau is currently in pandering mode, making all kinds of statements for how wonderful he is going to be to various groups. It might be timely for HRM to write him a letter and hold a flashy press conference about it asking for megabucks commuter rail/transit/roadway funding.

Yep. This may be a bit cynical, but the reality is that these federal dollars are essentially "free" from the perspective of individual cities. They pay in a small percentage, and the money will be spent somewhere. If it does not go to Halifax it will be spent in another town. Either way, HRM taxpayers pay the same federal taxes.

This was part of what was so sad about the Commonwealth Games, and why Halifax fared so poorly for government investment for years. HRM council did not understand how their infrastructure spending has the potential for a multiplier effect in terms of attracting funding from other sources, to say nothing of the economic growth and job creation.