Halifax Transit

[Nouvellecosse]

What I really want is for them to bundle the third harbour crossing with this plan. I posted a proposal in the third crossing thread suggesting a rail link, but it could also be done with just a tunnel for electric buses between Alderney and Barrington/Cogswell. This would be far cheaper than either a general road tunnel or my proposed rail link since it:

a) Would require far less ventilation for electric-only vehicles than if used for ICE vehicles.
b) Wouldn't require underground stations since people could board and disembark at surface level
c) Wouldn't require tunneling any further on either shore than just to get to the respective portals
d) Wouldn't require rails or electrification since the same battery-electric buses could be used throughout HRM

The service frequency would be approximately every 2 minutes peak and every 5-10 min off peak. This is justified because routes using the connection would replace the Alderney ferry plus the bridge segments of the 1, 10, and several other services that cross the bridge during peak. It would also need to account for the ridership increases that would result from a significant increase in crossing speed and reliability. If desired, the bunnel (bus tunnel) could also be converted to rail as part of a larger LRT or metro system at a later date. It could even be used by some emergency vehicles on occasion if they chose to invest in some electric or PHEV equipment at some point.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

What I really want is for them to bundle the third harbour crossing with this plan. I posted a proposal in the third crossing thread suggesting a rail link, but it could also be done with just a tunnel for electric buses between Alderney and Barrington/Cogswell. This would be far cheaper than either a general road tunnel or my proposed rail link since it:

a) Would require far less ventilation for electric-only vehicles than if used for ICE vehicles.
b) Wouldn't require underground stations since people could board and disembark at surface level
c) Wouldn't require tunneling any further on either shore than just to get to the respective portals
d) Wouldn't require rails or electrification since the same battery-electric buses could be used throughout HRM

The service frequency would be approximately every 2 minutes peak and every 5-10 min off peak. This is justified because routes using the connection would replace the Alderney ferry plus the bridge segments of the 1, 10, and several other services that cross the bridge during peak. It would also need to account for the ridership increases that would result from a significant increase in crossing speed and reliability. If desired, the bunnel (bus tunnel) could also be converted to rail as part of a larger LRT or metro system at a later date. It could even be used by some emergency vehicles on occasion if they chose to invest in some electric or PHEV equipment at some point.

Unfortunately our municipal leaders from the mayor on down have come out against a third harbor crossing. They seem to think 50% of the population will ride bicycles to and from woirk each and every day.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Unfortunately our municipal leaders from the mayor on down have come out against a third harbor crossing. They seem to think 50% of the population will ride bicycles to and from woirk each and every day.

I think the third crossing is one of those cases where it's easy to see the costs of building and hard to see the costs of not building. Not ]saying it should obviously be built but it seemed to get shot down long before many people fully understood the trade-offs.

From a regional planning perspective the areas south of the city are underdeveloped and have a half-completed road network that isn't very useful. Halifax should have a South End artery, connection up to Dunbrack, and connection to the Circ. And a bunch of development that is currently going to areas like Bedford West could be redirected much closer to downtown. This would result in people having to travel less (HRM is encouraging new suburbs 10 km from downtown and discouraging them 3 km from downtown; biking distance to downtown!) and would make the extension of city services cheaper.

There isn't really a coherent plan to get another 50,000-100,000 people from the Bedford/Mainland Halifax side on and off of the peninsula. There is a 102 corridor expansion plan and the budget for that is about as expensive as a third crossing would be.

It's easy to get caught up with a $1B price tag but forget about net differences in servicing costs and other incremental road work from 50,000 people worth of new development.

Of course the Mainland South planning stuff is even worse than the knee-jerk anti-bridge sentiment. The cost-benefit ratio of connecting up Point Pleasant Drive with the mainland is off the charts. Probably even a tunnel that caused minimal disruption would be well worth it. The distance is only around 500 m. Even just having an active transportation bridge would be useful.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think the third crossing is one of those cases where it's easy to see the costs of building and hard to see the costs of not building. Not ]saying it should obviously be built but it seemed to get shot down long before many people fully understood the trade-offs.

From a regional planning perspective the areas south of the city are underdeveloped and have a half-completed road network that isn't very useful. Halifax should have a South End artery, connection up to Dunbrack, and connection to the Circ. And a bunch of development that is currently going to areas like Bedford West could be redirected much closer to downtown. This would result in people having to travel less (HRM is encouraging new suburbs 10 km from downtown and discouraging them 3 km from downtown; biking distance to downtown!) and would make the extension of city services cheaper.

There isn't really a coherent plan to get another 50,000-100,000 people from the Bedford/Mainland Halifax side on and off of the peninsula. There is a 102 corridor expansion plan and the budget for that is about as expensive as a third crossing would be.

It's easy to get caught up with a $1B price tag but forget about net differences in servicing costs and other incremental road work from 50,000 people worth of new development.

Of course the Mainland South planning stuff is even worse than the knee-jerk anti-bridge sentiment. The cost-benefit ratio of connecting up Point Pleasant Drive with the mainland is off the charts. Probably even a tunnel that caused minimal disruption would be well worth it. The distance is only around 500 m. Even just having an active transportation bridge would be useful.

It makes no sense that a NWA bridge already hasn't been constructed. With the wealth that has moved into the Arm I'm sure the odd's we see even a tunnel or pedestrian bridge built at this point is pretty much exactly zero.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

What I really want is for them to bundle the third harbour crossing with this plan. I posted a proposal in the third crossing thread suggesting a rail link, but it could also be done with just a tunnel for electric buses between Alderney and Barrington/Cogswell. This would be far cheaper than either a general road tunnel or my proposed rail link since it:

a) Would require far less ventilation for electric-only vehicles than if used for ICE vehicles.
b) Wouldn't require underground stations since people could board and disembark at surface level
c) Wouldn't require tunneling any further on either shore than just to get to the respective portals
d) Wouldn't require rails or electrification since the same battery-electric buses could be used throughout HRM

The service frequency would be approximately every 2 minutes peak and every 5-10 min off peak. This is justified because routes using the connection would replace the Alderney ferry plus the bridge segments of the 1, 10, and several other services that cross the bridge during peak. It would also need to account for the ridership increases that would result from a significant increase in crossing speed and reliability. If desired, the bunnel (bus tunnel) could also be converted to rail as part of a larger LRT or metro system at a later date. It could even be used by some emergency vehicles on occasion if they chose to invest in some electric or PHEV equipment at some point.

Over on the VIA rail page, there is discussions on how the Ocean may be in peril due to not being able to use the loop to turn around.

I would suggest a rail tunnel. It lines up perfectly with the station. It also allows for a loop train to circle the harbour, there by negating the need of "fast ferries"

[Nouvellecosse]

I'm curious where you would place the portals and stations? Obviously I ask that because there's a huge difference between how steep of a gradients that can be handled by rubber tire road vehicles or even light rail or metro vs heavy, locomotive-hauled mainline rail vehicles. As one of the deepest harbours in the world with the section between the two downtowns reaching depths of around 20m, it would take an approach of a good km for it to get low enough to get under the harbour on either side since the steepest mainline railway track in Canada seems to be about 2.2%. But buses, especially electric buses, can climb extremely steep grades so they'd have little trouble.

Also, how would this be arranged to carry the level of passenger volumes to justify the costs? Would it just be that mainline EMUs would be running in the tunnel section when the Ocean wasn't using it? If so, how would we prevent the Ocean (which would be much longer and slower) from affecting the transit passenger flow? And with the Ocean being diesel powered, does that mean we'd need to spend the additional millions to have ventilation in the tunnel handle that? Or would it be like the situation when diesel powered trains reach Manhattan and the locomotive is swapped for an electric one? Or would we buy dual-mode locomotives for the Ocean that would operate over the entire route for the sake of that short section?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm curious where you would place the portals and stations? Obviously I ask that because there's a huge difference between how steep of a gradients that can be handled by rubber tire road vehicles or even light rail or metro vs heavy, locomotive-hauled mainline rail vehicles. As one of the deepest harbours in the world with the section between the two downtowns reaching depths of around 20m, it would take an approach of a good km for it to get low enough to get under the harbour on either side since the steepest mainline railway track in Canada seems to be about 2.2%. But buses, especially electric buses, can climb extremely steep grades so they'd have little trouble.

Also, how would this be arranged to carry the level of passenger volumes to justify the costs? Would it just be that mainline EMUs would be running in the tunnel section when the Ocean wasn't using it? If so, how would we prevent the Ocean (which would be much longer and slower) from affecting the transit passenger flow? And with the Ocean being diesel powered, does that mean we'd need to spend the additional millions to have ventilation in the tunnel handle that? Or would it be like the situation when diesel powered trains reach Manhattan and the locomotive is swapped for an electric one? Or would we buy dual-mode locomotives for the Ocean that would operate over the entire route for the sake of that short section?

I don't know, but somewhere in the railway cut that already exists. It would need to be far enough back to get the tunnel under the harbour and have a good grade. It might require reversing to get to the current VIA station.

The good thing is, on the Dartmouth side, you could have it turn while underground and then come up north of the 111.

As far as electrification, maybe they simply have an EMU waiting for the Ocean and hook up to it to pull it through.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That then makes those high speed ferries turn into lower speed boats.

It's possible that navigation technologies (radar etc) have advanced enough in the last 10 years that there might be work-arounds that didn't exist the last time this was proposed. But I think if anything there's more harbour traffic (and thus potential obstacles) now than there was then.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Why am I feeling like it's Groundhog Day? This is from 2006:

Halifax council approves fast ferry

Halifax Regional Council has giventhe green light to a fast ferry between Bedford and downtown Halifax,despite the reservations of a number of councillors.

"One only has to drive down the Bedford Highway in the morning and try to turn left," said Mosher. "It's impossible. The traffic is completely blocked."
Others are not completely sold on the idea. Coun. Sue Uteck said the money could be better spent on improving the existing bus system.

A fast-ferry proposal has been bandied about for years. In 2000, when a rapid-transit plan using old CN rail lines went by the wayside, a high-speed ferry service was suggested as one of the alternatives.

[Phalanx]

I could be mis-remembering or mistaken, but wasn't the issue with the last fast ferry proposal speed/safety restrictions imposed by Transport Canada around active shipping lanes? Or something like that?

I don't think technology is a limiting factor as these kinds of ferries are and have been used in other active harbours around the world.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

I could be mis-remembering or mistaken, but wasn't the issue with the last fast ferry proposal speed/safety restrictions imposed by Transport Canada around active shipping lanes? Or something like that?

I don't think technology is a limiting factor as these kinds of ferries are and have been used in other active harbours around the world.

Without looking it up, my memory is that it was a cost issue.

In this thread, however, I think that some posters are just expressing their preference for one method of transportation over another, but stating potential problems with one particular method while not pointing out problems with the other. Which is fine, as it is a forum in which we can give opinions and discuss pros and cons based on our preferences.

In order of preference, I would like to see:
1) Commuter rail, using the existing rail cut with the possibility of adding other routes with light rail routes to reach other strategic parts of the city that will work in conjunction with the main rail route using the cut. This would, in an ideal circumstance, include a third harbour crossing in the south end that would have one level dedicated to rail-only (perhaps to be combined with active transportation lanes).

2) Extended ferry service. I think our preference should be to find new/existing routes to provide transit, which will result in increased capacity over current. Rail and water can provide that, despite perceived shortcomings. Reconfiguring our existing roads, for which no significant real estate exists to improve capacity, is short term thinking IMHO. Halifax is continuing to show signs of growth greater than the past, and the trend seems to be towards increasing rates of growth. So, IMHO, now is the time to look at increasing capacity. We can always add bus lanes later if more capacity is needed, and car ownership becomes less (which seems to be the trend among younger people).

3) BRT, as discussed above. If we are going to increase buses, then I think it would be a good idea to consider electric buses - not battery powered, but buses which use overhead wires to operate, such as those which I've seen used in other places (and like the ones Halifax had from 1949-1970). The idea of adding more diesel buses seems to go against our desire for a smaller carbon footprint, and IMHO current battery technology is not all that environmentally friendly.

My only caveat to using existing rail or adding ferries, is that they will use internal combustion engines to power them (well, diesel-electric for trains, but still combustion). I see them as more desirable than additional diesel buses though, as presumably they can carry more people per amount of carbon produced. I don't have data, though, just a presumption.

[Phalanx]

I would love to see some kind of commuter and/or LRT system, but there's a lack of political will and it feels like the opportunity is slipping away. Increased development on the peninsula makes it more difficult to build big infrastructure without going underground or elevated which would significantly increase costs, and off of the peninsula the rail is forced to go to/around new developments rather than having new developments built around an optimized rail system.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This would, in an ideal circumstance, include a third harbour crossing in the south end that would have one level dedicated to rail-only (perhaps to be combined with active transportation lanes).

The third harbor crossing as proposed 12 years ago is a significantly longer span than either the Macdonald or MacKay bridges. If you are building it to handle rail then it would have to be even longer in order to provide a suitably gentle slope. Such a thing makes "active transportation" highly unlikely, especially considering that the existing bike lanes have been shown to be a colossal failure and waste of money since virtually nobody uses them.

Reconfiguring our existing roads, for which no significant real estate exists to improve capacity, is short term thinking IMHO. Halifax is continuing to show signs of growth greater than the past, and the trend seems to be towards increasing rates of growth. So, IMHO, now is the time to look at increasing capacity. We can always add bus lanes later if more capacity is needed, and car ownership becomes less (which seems to be the trend among younger people).

Our road network is essentially unchanged from what it was in the early 1960s. Given the significant growth in population, we are long overdue for higher capacity roads and streets, even if the other patterns you note may be true. More buses will clog the existing roads and streets, but will be unlikely to reduce vehicle traffic much given the growth in population and the sprawly nature of HRM which necessitates vehicles for many. While fewer young people may be buying cars (something I do not see except among those newly graduating and just entering the workforce; once they have a partner and begin to have children that almost always changes) they seem to have a great affinity for services like Uber and Lyft, which means that there are far more of those zipping about. Road traffic is unlikely to do anything other than keep growing, even if the vehicles become electric or otherwise powered differently.

We will need to pay the price for decades of inaction on our street and road network. Expropriation along Bayers Rd has been the first evidence of that but I suspect North Street will need similar and far more expensive measures as well. Failing that perhaps some creative uses of the Chebucto/Charles St corridor to pair up as twin one-way streets along with North to alleviate that mess once and for all.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

I would love to see some kind of commuter and/or LRT system, but there's a lack of political will and it feels like the opportunity is slipping away. Increased development on the peninsula makes it more difficult to build big infrastructure without going underground or elevated which would significantly increase costs, and off of the peninsula the rail is forced to go to/around new developments rather than having new developments built around an optimized rail system.

I agree there is a lack of political will but I think the project gets easier as the city develops, not harder. The norm in postwar North America has been for cities to develop rail when they were already medium sized, and most of them did not have existing right of ways set aside ahead of time.

If you look at, say, Calgary, they ran the downtown LRT along 7th Ave. Calgary and Edmonton were about the size Halifax is now when they began LRT planning and construction, and they built more modest systems than some larger cities like Toronto or Montreal. Calgary's LRT was an enormous success.

Elevated would be economical if used sparingly in the situations that call for it. Halifax has lots of elevated roadways and bridges. And there are other places where new rail could be built at grade. It's a good trade-off to sacrifice 2 lanes of mixed traffic for 2 at-grade rail lines. A 2-lane road might carry 1,000 cars per day while an LRT line can carry over 100,000. It's not even a given that swapping some mixed traffic lanes for LRT would make congestion worse or lower the capacity for vehicles to get onto the peninsula. LRT would take some buses off the streets and some people who drive would choose to take the train.

The biggest challenge for LRT in Halifax is that there is no good corridor where the demand justifies spending tens of millions of dollars per kilometer to build a line. You can see this in transit planning maps that propose building 3 or 4 different lines; Halifax is way too small for that. Part of the reason for the lack of a coherent corridor is that Halifax has not had a plan to develop one.

I think Robie has the potential to be such a corridor. There is a lot of development happening along Robie and it connects with a lot of important destinations.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

I would love to see some kind of commuter and/or LRT system, but there's a lack of political will and it feels like the opportunity is slipping away. Increased development on the peninsula makes it more difficult to build big infrastructure without going underground or elevated which would significantly increase costs, and off of the peninsula the rail is forced to go to/around new developments rather than having new developments built around an optimized rail system.

I agree. That is my main concern for the city continuing to push increased bus usage, while ignoring rail because apparently 'it's too difficult'. I think the window is closing on bringing rail into the city, if it hasn't already closed, and if the city waits until it is really needed it will be too late.

As you can see from the article I linked to above, this discussion has been going on for over 20 years, each time the city just gives up and decides to add more buses.

What makes it worse is that we actually had a form of commuter rail years ago, only to be dropped as public attitudes moved towards increasing car travel. Now that many are starting to understand the implications of climate change and are more likely to leave their cars at home if transit could provide them with a good alternative, we continue to move further away from it.

For interest's sake:
Nova Scotians Hail New Dayliner Service

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

What makes it worse is that we actually had a form of commuter rail years ago

There was a service in Halifax literally called "The Suburban" that served areas like Bedford. I don't know how long it was around for or how long it went but it was running circa 1900 over the Sackville River rail bridge.

I think a big part of the problem is there just isn't enough ambition at the planning phase or prioritization in capital spending. The municipality was seduced by the promise of commuter rail along the CN line because it was perceived as being a cheaper solution, but regardless of CN's cooperation it is not an ideal route. It may be worth it to spend more and build rail in an ideal spot rather than save capital spending and build rail in a less desirable location. But in Halifax it's always about cutting costs.

[Phalanx]

I have very vague memories of an elementary school field trip on one of the last Dayliner trips between Digby and Halifax.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

There was a service in Halifax literally called "The Suburban" that served areas like Bedford. I don't know how long it was around for or how long it went but it was running circa 1900 over the Sackville River rail bridge.

I think a big part of the problem is there just isn't enough ambition at the planning phase or prioritization in capital spending. The municipality was seduced by the promise of commuter rail along the CN line because it was perceived as being a cheaper solution, but regardless of CN's cooperation it is not an ideal route. It may be worth it to spend more and build rail in an ideal spot rather than save capital spending and build rail in a less desirable location. But in Halifax it's always about cutting costs.

I knew about that route, but couldn't find info on it in the few minutes I allowed myself to search for it. I recall it, and have seen photos of the train stopping at the Bedford station, for example. The Dayliner was a similar concept, except it extended further to rail lines that don't even exist anymore, but it is a good example on how much we have gravitated from rail travel and towards individual vehicle travel. Much of it ended before I was old enough to use it effectively, unfortunately. If it existed today, I would use it.

I think at this point, the thoughts of the city/other levels of government being ambitious enough to do an equivalent to the early 20th century creation of the rail cut or ocean terminals seem to be so far off that all I can see myself vaguely hoping for are 'cheap' projects like using existing CN tracks. Of course I think most of us would like to see more ambitious projects, but can't see it actually happening.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The third harbor crossing as proposed 12 years ago is a significantly longer span than either the Macdonald or MacKay bridges. If you are building it to handle rail then it would have to be even longer in order to provide a suitably gentle slope. Such a thing makes "active transportation" highly unlikely, especially considering that the existing bike lanes have been shown to be a colossal failure and waste of money since virtually nobody uses them.

So your thinking is more along the line of 'it's too difficult, so we shouldn't do it'. Every project will have challenges, but we're not talking setting up a colony on Mars, it's just a bridge. Since bridges have been successfully built for hundreds... no thousands of years, I think we can say "we've got that".

FWIW, adding bike lanes to an existing structure wouldn't add a lot of cost to building it, especially if it were planned as part of the initial design. The argument that nobody uses it is a little weak, as sufficient time for cycling transportation to catch on should be allowed. I will say, though, if 20 years pass and nobody is using cycling lanes, that space can be converted back to use for some more practical method of transportation.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Our road network is essentially unchanged from what it was in the early 1960s. Given the significant growth in population, we are long overdue for higher capacity roads and streets, even if the other patterns you note may be true. More buses will clog the existing roads and streets, but will be unlikely to reduce vehicle traffic much given the growth in population and the sprawly nature of HRM which necessitates vehicles for many. While fewer young people may be buying cars (something I do not see except among those newly graduating and just entering the workforce; once they have a partner and begin to have children that almost always changes) they seem to have a great affinity for services like Uber and Lyft, which means that there are far more of those zipping about. Road traffic is unlikely to do anything other than keep growing, even if the vehicles become electric or otherwise powered differently.

Road traffic will continue to grow if we continue to push inadequate methods of transit on the people. I think the salient point, and one that has been made before is that this hasn't been the case in other cities that have introduced good transit systems - see someone123's post above. The potential is there for people to choose to leave their cars at home if a good alternative exists. Again, not rocket science. Other successful examples exist out there.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

We will need to pay the price for decades of inaction on our street and road network. Expropriation along Bayers Rd has been the first evidence of that but I suspect North Street will need similar and far more expensive measures as well. Failing that perhaps some creative uses of the Chebucto/Charles St corridor to pair up as twin one-way streets along with North to alleviate that mess once and for all.

Agreed on the point that our city has ignored the need to improve infrastructure for decades. Given that all they are discussing now is to paint more lines on existing roads, it doesn't look good for the near future.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think at this point, the thoughts of the city/other levels of government being ambitious enough to do an equivalent to the early 20th century creation of the rail cut or ocean terminals seem to be so far off that all I can see myself vaguely hoping for are 'cheap' projects like using existing CN tracks. Of course I think most of us would like to see more ambitious projects, but can't see it actually happening.

This culture can change over time though, and there will be pressure for it to change if population growth continues at the current pace. It's just too bad that infrastructure development is likely to be reactive, because it means many unnecessary years of travel delays.

These old projects were enormously more ambitious than anything being built today. The proportional effort required for the ocean terminals project must have been well over 10x anything that HRM is looking at today. Also note that the rail cut went through a bunch of large estates and some houses were torn down for it.