Halifax Transit

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

One can only hope. I think it's accurate to believe that it will be reactive, and that things will have to get worse before there is motivation to improve, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

Yes. I think it's fair to state that projects like these would be much more difficult and expensive today because of labour and safety standards as well. But still, we aren't looking at doing anything even half ambitious today.

[someone123]

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 am not sure about this but the negativity around potential Halifax ferries seems a bit weird. I am always skeptical when something is deemed impossible in one city or province and then has been running somewhere else for a long time. One example I like is that self-serve gas is illegal in Oregon and there's a legalization debate that causes people to bring up a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't be allowed. Meanwhile, cross a bridge into Washington and it's the norm and is fine.

Boston has a bunch of fast ferries. Their climate is very similar and they have the same exposure to Atlantic storms. Some of the Boston fast ferries seem to run in much more exposed waters. For example the Provincetown ferry runs in Massachusetts Bay, not only Boston Harbour, and even the Hingham ferry looks a bit more analogous to outer parts of Halifax Harbour. Presumably Boston Harbour is much busier than Halifax Harbour since Boston is a much bigger city.

The Boston ferries have a max speed of around 29 knots while Halifax ferries seem to be around 7-10 knots.

The population base around Bedford has grown tremendously since the fast ferry debate of the early 2000's. The only thing that hasn't changed much is that the waterfront area itself has barely been developed, while privately owned land nearby has seen huge amounts of construction. Mill Cove should be turned into a "downtown" for that part of the metro area with a good ferry connection to downtown Halifax and bus connections.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

I am not sure about this but the negativity around potential Halifax ferries seems a bit weird. I am always skeptical when something is deemed impossible in one city or province and then has been running somewhere else for a long time. One example I like is that self-serve gas is illegal in Oregon and there's a legalization debate that causes people to bring up a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't be allowed. Meanwhile, cross a bridge into Washington and it's the norm and is fine.

Boston has a bunch of fast ferries. Their climate is very similar and they have the same exposure to Atlantic storms. Some of the Boston fast ferries seem to run in much more exposed waters. For example the Provincetown ferry runs in Massachusetts Bay, not only Boston Harbour, and even the Hingham ferry looks a bit more analogous to outer parts of Halifax Harbour. Presumably Boston Harbour is much busier than Halifax Harbour since Boston is a much bigger city.

The Boston ferries have a max speed of around 29 knots while Halifax ferries seem to be around 7-10 knots.

The population base around Bedford has grown tremendously since the fast ferry debate of the early 2000's. The only thing that hasn't changed much is that the waterfront area itself has barely been developed, while privately owned land nearby has seen huge amounts of construction. Mill Cove should be turned into a "downtown" for that part of the metro area with a good ferry connection to downtown Halifax and bus connections.

Look where the Conley Container terminal is. Then look at where their ferries are. Then do the same with Halifax. You will see that there is more traffic in Halifax than in Boston to contend with.

[Nouvellecosse]

I recall hearing that part of the issue was with the severe subsidies needed due to the gas guzzling nature of water transport compared to road or rail - especially for powerful fast ferries. It makes sense if you're significantly reducing the total distance traveled basically allowing you to take an "as the crow flies" route since even if the per km cost is higher that's tempered by the decrease in distance by not having to take the long way around if traveling on land. But in Halifax's case, you're really not reducing the distance by much when traveling between Bedford and Halifax. So you get the benefit of bypassing congestion, but also get the downside of having far fewer stops reducing your potential ridership base. Once these two things sort of cancel out, you're still left with the downside of the high fuel cost/km. In other words, either high ticket prices, high per passenger subsidy, or both.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But in Halifax's case, you're really not reducing the distance by much when traveling between Bedford and Halifax. So you get the benefit of bypassing congestion, but also get the downside of having far fewer stops reducing your potential ridership base. Once these two things sort of cancel out, you're still left with the downside of the high fuel cost/km. In other words, either high ticket prices, high per passenger subsidy, or both.

My fuzzy memory on the former proposal that was floated (har-de-har-har) was that Transport Canada did have concerns about speed and congestion with existing movement in the harbor, but also that people balked at the ticket pricing that would be needed - I seem to recall it being $10 or $15 per trip, but stand to be corrected on that. It just did not seem viable given that. I don't know if anything has changed since.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

I agree with you on Robie - with the exception of the blocks between Almon and Cunard, it is ideal for this, and that bottleneck could easily be dealt with if there was political will. So there is your north/south corridor.

I disagree that there is no good corridor east/west. The two main sources of commuter traffic are Bedford/Sackville and points west, and Tantallon and points south. You have a ready-made corridor along the 102 for a rail service even if you have to detour around the worst of the hills near the 101/102 interchange, and even better on the Tantallon side with the 103 corridor along with the former rail ROW that is the BLT trail. Connect either up Bayers to Robie and then down Robie as far as you want. Challenging and expensive certainly, but not impossible with enough federal help.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

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".

I don't know where you got that. I have been a staunch supporter of the third harbor crossing since it was initially proposed.

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.

Let me refresh your memory. The bike lane was added to the Macdonald at the same time the 3rd lane was added as part of the original redecking project in the late '90s. So the bike lanes have already been there for 20 years and have not led to any significant use in all that time. Time to admit it has failed and go in a different direction.

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.

The issue here is multilayered. Halifax Transit has proven to be incapable of delivering a well-managed, timely, reliable, frequent and desirable service since its inception. They simply are not capable of doing that. Transit here is always a last-resort option as a result and has developed a very unfavorable image in the minds of potential users. This is not NYC where no viable options exist and commuters are resigned to using public transit to get to work. If you can sit in comfort in your car for an hour, even if stuck in traffic, you are enjoying climate control, the listening options of your choice, and not having to cope being cheek to jowl with noisy, often dirty, stinky or disease-carrying transit users who are also stuck in the same congestion. It is a no-brainer of a choice for most.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I don't know where you got that. I have been a staunch supporter of the third harbor crossing since it was initially proposed.

Then why was your first comment an outline of all the problems involved with building one? When I read it, I got the impression you were saying "it's too hard!"

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Let me refresh your memory. The bike lane was added to the Macdonald at the same time the 3rd lane was added as part of the original redecking project in the late '90s. So the bike lanes have already been there for 20 years and have not led to any significant use in all that time. Time to admit it has failed and go in a different direction.

Let me say it again: "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."

You're a fool if you think that modern day planners are going to drop bike lanes because some older folks like us prefer to take our cars. Climate change is here, the younger generations (and "woke" older people) are concerned and are changing things up. Even if nobody is using them now, we have to go by the "build it and they will come" methodology. We're getting rid of plastic bags, people are wanting electric vehicles and increased transit options - there's a lot of political will to change things up (or at least to appear to make an effort - politicians, you know) - people want changes that will make a difference in improving the climate. No politician that wants to get voted in again is going to vote for "let's keep doing things the way we've always done it"... because that's a way to be shown the door in today's world.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The issue here is multilayered. Halifax Transit has proven to be incapable of delivering a well-managed, timely, reliable, frequent and desirable service since its inception. They simply are not capable of doing that. Transit here is always a last-resort option as a result and has developed a very unfavorable image in the minds of potential users. This is not NYC where no viable options exist and commuters are resigned to using public transit to get to work. If you can sit in comfort in your car for an hour, even if stuck in traffic, you are enjoying climate control, the listening options of your choice, and not having to cope being cheek to jowl with noisy, often dirty, stinky or disease-carrying transit users who are also stuck in the same congestion. It is a no-brainer of a choice for most.

So, because Halifax Transit has failed in the past, we should forget about trying to improve? Because Halifax doesn't have 8.6 million people we should forget about transit?

LOL on your description of bus travel, but it's really not that bad. Yeah, from time to time there will be unpleasantries, but every mode of transportation has those. When driving a car, you regularly have to deal with numerous drivers who appear to have their heads up their arses, but you still drive...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Then why was your first comment an outline of all the problems involved with building one? When I read it, I got the impression you were saying "it's too hard!"

My comment was on the folly of adding bike lanes to such a long crossing. It is particularly foolish when you consider it is connecting to the 111 in Woodside, hardly a center of population or a hotbed of cycling.

You're a fool if you think that modern day planners are going to drop bike lanes because some older folks like us prefer to take our cars. Climate change is here, the younger generations (and "woke" older people) are concerned and are changing things up. Even if nobody is using them now, we have to go by the "build it and they will come" methodology. We're getting rid of plastic bags, people are wanting electric vehicles and increased transit options - there's a lot of political will to change things up (or at least to appear to make an effort - politicians, you know) - people want changes that will make a difference in improving the climate. No politician that wants to get voted in again is going to vote for "let's keep doing things the way we've always done it"... because that's a way to be shown the door in today's world.

If I am a fool it is because I have hope that members of the modern-day planning profession will acquire a lick of common sense and move on from the dogma they have been taught that bike lanes are the solution to the world's problems, just like banning plastic bags solves the climate change issue. Neither is true but both have been trumpted as such by so-called "experts" and the "woke" media, and gullible unthinking people tend to believe such things.

So, because Halifax Transit has failed in the past, we should forget about trying to improve? Because Halifax doesn't have 8.6 million people we should forget about transit?

We should forget about Halifax Transit as the only source of transit services. Another organization, either private or a carefully-constructed publicly-owned one that is not owned by HRM and is starting day one with its hands tied by the OTA collective agreement, is needed instead.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

We should forget about Halifax Transit as the only source of transit services. Another organization, either private or a carefully-constructed publicly-owned one that is not owned by HRM and is starting day one with its hands tied by the OTA collective agreement, is needed instead.

In Vancouver there's a transit authority called TransLink but different parts of the system are run by different operators. Even the SkyTrain system has different companies running different parts. There can be a transit strike here for just buses or even just the Expo and Millennium train lines while the Canada Line still runs, for example.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

My comment was on the folly of adding bike lanes to such a long crossing. It is particularly foolish when you consider it is connecting to the 111 in Woodside, hardly a center of population or a hotbed of cycling.





If I am a fool it is because I have hope that members of the modern-day planning profession will acquire a lick of common sense and move on from the dogma they have been taught that bike lanes are the solution to the world's problems, just like banning plastic bags solves the climate change issue. Neither is true but both have been trumpted as such by so-called "experts" and the "woke" media, and gullible unthinking people tend to believe such things.




We should forget about Halifax Transit as the only source of transit services. Another organization, either private or a carefully-constructed publicly-owned one that is not owned by HRM and is starting day one with its hands tied by the OTA collective agreement, is needed instead.

Good points. I don't disagree.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I agree with you on Robie - with the exception of the blocks between Almon and Cunard, it is ideal for this, and that bottleneck could easily be dealt with if there was political will. So there is your north/south corridor.

Widening that section of Robie would be one option, a short tunnel for transit (and possibly other "through"-traffic) for a few blocks under Robie would also open up a lot of possibilities and IMO would likely be well worth the investment.

[Nouvellecosse]

^^ That's a strange statement. Could you elaborate?

[Hali87]

Robie would be really useful as a North-South transit corridor (whether for LRT, or dedicated bus lanes). Except for the narrow section between Cunard and Almon (roughly 500m). It's much more effective if the transit ROW can be uninterrupted and doesn't need to operate in mixed traffic. As it stands there isn't really a way to have dedicated space for transit going in both directions as well as space for other vehicles within that stretch. Traffic is fairly heavy in both directions during peak periods and there isn't really a simple parallel route nearby that you can just "move things over" to. So it would be a very, very, tough sell (and IMO not a great idea, in practice) to close part of Robie to cars (as well as truck traffic, etc). On top of this the entire Robie corridor is developing rapidly and intensively, so there will be even more pressure on the existing system a few years from now. It's basically the "midtown spine" and one of the only uninterrupted N-S streets on the peninsula (Barrington is another, and that's basically it).

By tunneling under that section you could keep the surface streets available to local traffic (including bus routes making local stops) while allowing other traffic ("rapid transit" with limited, further apart stops, and potentially transport trucks and/or other vehicles that don't need to exit Robie in that area) to bypass the congestion. This would address some problems in the immediate area but more importantly would make any higher-order transit along robie much more viable and effective.

You could also widen that section of Robie to 2 lanes each direction (1 in each direction being dedicated to transit) although this would involve other tradeoffs that may or may not be palatable to the public, woudln't address localized congestion as well, and would involve a lot of different property owners who may or may not be cooperative. I guess in theory depending on what is demolished you could add more than one additional lane.

Some kind of elevated road/transitway is a theoretical third option although I think there would be a lot more practical/design challenges and I can see it being a non-starter for aesthetic reasons alone.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Robie would be really useful as a North-South transit corridor (whether for LRT, or dedicated bus lanes). Except for the narrow section between Cunard and Almon (roughly 500m). It's much more effective if the transit ROW can be uninterrupted and doesn't need to operate in mixed traffic. As it stands there isn't really a way to have dedicated space for transit going in both directions as well as space for other vehicles within that stretch. Traffic is fairly heavy in both directions during peak periods and there isn't really a simple parallel route nearby that you can just "move things over" to. So it would be a very, very, tough sell (and IMO not a great idea, in practice) to close part of Robie to cars (as well as truck traffic, etc). On top of this the entire Robie corridor is developing rapidly and intensively, so there will be even more pressure on the existing system a few years from now. It's basically the "midtown spine" and one of the only uninterrupted N-S streets on the peninsula (Barrington is another, and that's basically it).

By tunneling under that section you could keep the surface streets available to local traffic (including bus routes making local stops) while allowing other traffic ("rapid transit" with limited, further apart stops, and potentially transport trucks and/or other vehicles that don't need to exit Robie in that area) to bypass the congestion. This would address some problems in the immediate area but more importantly would make any higher-order transit along robie much more viable and effective.

You could also widen that section of Robie to 2 lanes each direction (1 in each direction being dedicated to transit) although this would involve other tradeoffs that may or may not be palatable to the public, woudln't address localized congestion as well, and would involve a lot of different property owners who may or may not be cooperative. I guess in theory depending on what is demolished you could add more than one additional lane.

Some kind of elevated road/transitway is a theoretical third option although I think there would be a lot more practical/design challenges and I can see it being a non-starter for aesthetic reasons alone.

Much of the main roads on the peninsula are too narrow for meaningful transit. Tunneling under the area would be the best way. The problem is, the city would not go for it. They still try to act like they are a small town.

[someone123]

I think selective tunnels are the way to go in Halifax too, and this is an area where there's a bit of confusion about transit, with people talking about a system being built at grade, above, or below ground. Systems can be a mix of all 3 and which options are best depends on specifics of the alignments and the budget. In Halifax it would not make sense to build expensive tunnels everywhere but they could be used strategically to avoid bottlenecks or disruption.

Aside from Robie, University Avenue, Victoria Park/South Park, and Cogswell offer interesting possibilities. There's also a lot of flexibility around the Commons and Citadel, either to wider or realign streets or to build relatively affordable cut-and-cover tunnels.

Downtown Halifax is compact too. 500 m of tunnel is the difference between a subpar route and putting a station in the absolute ideal location.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think selective tunnels are the way to go in Halifax too, and this is an area where there's a bit of confusion about transit, with people talking about a system being built at grade, above, or below ground. Systems can be a mix of all 3 and which options are best depends on specifics of the alignments and the budget. In Halifax it would not make sense to build expensive tunnels everywhere but they could be used strategically to avoid bottlenecks or disruption.

Aside from Robie, University Avenue, Victoria Park/South Park, and Cogswell offer interesting possibilities. There's also a lot of flexibility around the Commons and Citadel, either to wider or realign streets or to build relatively affordable cut-and-cover tunnels.

Downtown Halifax is compact too. 500 m of tunnel is the difference between a subpar route and putting a station in the absolute ideal location.

The challenge is having the topography that allows good portals. Due to the shape of the peninsula, I feel it would be better to bury it all. This way then, you also have the added benefit that the city still has the same street scape, and a good transit system.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The challenge is having the topography that allows good portals. Due to the shape of the peninsula, I feel it would be better to bury it all. This way then, you also have the added benefit that the city still has the same street scape, and a good transit system.

Subway construction costs have ballooned in Canada to around $500M per km or more. Around 10 years ago, the Canada Line was completed for $100M per km. Even if costs were much lower than average to build an underground line on the peninsula, it would be up into the $500M-1B+ range.

Some French LRT systems, presumably above ground, only cost around $35M per kilometer. Halifax could easily afford that. In fact if it were possible to build it on the peninsula for that price it would be extremely attractive, since just the third harbour bridge or the 102 corridor expansion are $1B+. 28 km of LRT would be way more useful.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Robie would be really useful as a North-South transit corridor (whether for LRT, or dedicated bus lanes). Except for the narrow section between Cunard and Almon (roughly 500m). It's much more effective if the transit ROW can be uninterrupted and doesn't need to operate in mixed traffic. As it stands there isn't really a way to have dedicated space for transit going in both directions as well as space for other vehicles within that stretch. Traffic is fairly heavy in both directions during peak periods and there isn't really a simple parallel route nearby that you can just "move things over" to. So it would be a very, very, tough sell (and IMO not a great idea, in practice) to close part of Robie to cars (as well as truck traffic, etc). On top of this the entire Robie corridor is developing rapidly and intensively, so there will be even more pressure on the existing system a few years from now. It's basically the "midtown spine" and one of the only uninterrupted N-S streets on the peninsula (Barrington is another, and that's basically it).

By tunneling under that section you could keep the surface streets available to local traffic (including bus routes making local stops) while allowing other traffic ("rapid transit" with limited, further apart stops, and potentially transport trucks and/or other vehicles that don't need to exit Robie in that area) to bypass the congestion. This would address some problems in the immediate area but more importantly would make any higher-order transit along robie much more viable and effective.

You could also widen that section of Robie to 2 lanes each direction (1 in each direction being dedicated to transit) although this would involve other tradeoffs that may or may not be palatable to the public, woudln't address localized congestion as well, and would involve a lot of different property owners who may or may not be cooperative. I guess in theory depending on what is demolished you could add more than one additional lane.

Some kind of elevated road/transitway is a theoretical third option although I think there would be a lot more practical/design challenges and I can see it being a non-starter for aesthetic reasons alone.

Well you make a spirited argument for it I'll grant you that. I suppose the reasons it sounded strange to me are twofold. Firstly that the distance between Almon and the Robie Cunard intersection is about 900m which is about as long as the distance on Barrington between Cogswell and SGR. I've heard of bus tunnels under a city centre before (Seattle famously had one before it was adapted for use in its LRT system) but never one outside a CBD. But I suppose other than cost there's no reason it couldn't be done. Especially considering such things are done for LRT segments around the world on a regular basis. However, in modern times (last few decades) it's extremely rare to do cut and cover tunnel construction in urban areas due to disruption on the surface. A TBM would seem to be an odd investment for only a km of tunnel, but I can't see temporarily closing down the street.

But then, if you're using a TBM, there's no inherent need for the tunnel to stay below one specific corridor. For instance, it could start near Almon/Robie only to emerge just after the Agricola/North Park rotary without needing much additional length (910m vs 1.01km). And of course N. Park, Cogswell and Rainne dr. are all quite wide and can be widened if need be.

[Nouvellecosse]

One thing that's important to note is that a good 50% of the cost of underground transit systems tends to be from the stations. Therefore a stretch of tunnel without stations is decidedly advantaged cost-wise. A further reduction in cost would come if only buses that could operate in a zero emissions mode were used.