Halifax Transit

[Hali87]

I guess something else to keep in mind is that LRT in particular has probably been getting a lot of bad press lately in Canadian planning circles due to major problems with the newest lines in Edmonton and Ottawa (largely design oversights in Edmonton vs. extensive technical problems in Ottawa). The City of Hamilton controversially bought up and vacated a bunch of buildings to make room for an LRT corridor and now the LRT project is probably not even going to be built anymore and the City is stuck in a very awkward position.

Then again Edmonton also built a bus storage facility that can't handle the weight of their buses so I'm not sure that LRT technology itself is the problem in Edmonton's case.

KWC's LRT system on the other hand seems to have gone well but I never hear about it outside of SSP. I think York Region also has LRT or at least BRT with dedicated ROWs, and I think Quebec City might have proper BRT as well. Ottawa has a very extensive BRT system but their new LRT line was (ostensibly) an effort to simplify the central parts of the BRT network, which had become too congested and complicated to work very well (and required more drivers)

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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.

Exactly, it wouldn't necessarily need to follow the alignment of Robie Street perfectly, so it could be a bit shorter than the "road distance" since Robie bends slightly at that point. I don't know the actual measurements, I was just eyeballing off Google Maps.

I can't think of many other examples of this kind of thing offhand but there's a 660m transit tunnel in a part of Providence with a comparable urban environment (I think it basically goes under Brown campus). It was built over 100 years ago.

Temporarily closing down the street would be disruptive temporarily. I can't see it being more disruptive than having the MacDonald Bridge closed for however long it was closed for, or whatever's going to happen with Cogswell during the redevelopment. And I think the end result (having a viable route for rapid transit right down the centre of the peninsula) would be worth the temporary inconvenience, and that it's approximately the amount of ambition that the public might support/accept at this point in time.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

Given those numbers a tunnel under the Almon-Cunard stretch of Robie makes zero sense. There is little along that stretch that would be a loss if the ROW was widened. The abandoned Bloomfield site, lower-end/shabby retail, car lots, gas stations, and some old rental units. A few millions to acquire what it needs and you're ready to knock it down and construct a proper ROW. This isn't exactly Central London.

Thinking a bit further ahead surface stations could be built in what is now the median on parts of Robie, which is where I assume the service would be run. If you want to go underground, such a station adjacent to the QEII on Robie where the terrain rises would make some sense.

[Keith P.]

On the LRT topic, here is an in-depth article on the issues that Ottawa has been having with its new system:

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/busine...of-ottawas-9-billion-lrt-project-419150/

It is "premium" content within the Herald so you either need to be a subscriber or know how to avoid their paywalling.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by 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.

You mean like the Silverline in Boston?
If that were done, I would suggest the stations be designed with the plan of an easy change to LRT when ridership warrants it. However, Ottawa proves that switching over can be a nightmare.

So, why not build an LRT under the peninsula?

Originally Posted by Hali87

I guess something else to keep in mind is that LRT in particular has probably been getting a lot of bad press lately in Canadian planning circles due to major problems with the newest lines in Edmonton and Ottawa (largely design oversights in Edmonton vs. extensive technical problems in Ottawa). The City of Hamilton controversially bought up and vacated a bunch of buildings to make room for an LRT corridor and now the LRT project is probably not even going to be built anymore and the City is stuck in a very awkward position.

Then again Edmonton also built a bus storage facility that can't handle the weight of their buses so I'm not sure that LRT technology itself is the problem in Edmonton's case.

KWC's LRT system on the other hand seems to have gone well but I never hear about it outside of SSP. I think York Region also has LRT or at least BRT with dedicated ROWs, and I think Quebec City might have proper BRT as well. Ottawa has a very extensive BRT system but their new LRT line was (ostensibly) an effort to simplify the central parts of the BRT network, which had become too congested and complicated to work very well (and required more drivers)

What might be a good idea is tunnels to get off the peninsula, including a 3rd harbour crossing as an LRT system. Beyond that, some sort of BRT would work well. That surface BRT could be upgraded as the demand increases.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hali87

and I think Quebec City might have proper BRT as well. Ottawa has a very extensive BRT system but their new LRT line was (ostensibly) an effort to simplify the central parts of the BRT network, which had become too congested and complicated to work very well (and required more drivers)

Quebec City doesn't have proper BRT. All it has is a network of buses only lanes here and there and I believe advanced green for buses at some intersections. It doesn't work too badly actually but as their next stage they're not going to BRT but rather to a tramway system instead.

You're correct about Ottawa - the central part of the BRT (Transitway) is the focus of a switch to LRT with part of that done and open and part of it under construction or set to begin construction.

Ottawa also has additional LRT *and* BRT projects on the books, and some segments of the old BRT are at this point scheduled to remain as BRT for the foreseeable future.

So it's not quite a wholesale switch of all of Ottawa's BRT to LRT that is planned.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Given those numbers a tunnel under the Almon-Cunard stretch of Robie makes zero sense. There is little along that stretch that would be a loss if the ROW was widened. The abandoned Bloomfield site, lower-end/shabby retail, car lots, gas stations, and some old rental units. A few millions to acquire what it needs and you're ready to knock it down and construct a proper ROW. This isn't exactly Central London.

It's the section between Charles and North that I think would generate the most resistance to demolition. Regardless of your personal opinion, I could see it being a really tough sell politically. The narrative would quickly become "the city is demolishing affordable, historic houses and mature trees to widen roads", and the Hamilton case would be held up as an example of "what happens when cities try to do this".

It's true that much of the land that could be used for a widened Robie St is already paved over (in other sections).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Hali87

It's the section between Charles and North that I think would generate the most resistance to demolition. Regardless of your personal opinion, I could see it being a really tough sell politically. The narrative would quickly become "the city is demolishing affordable, historic houses and mature trees to widen roads", and the Hamilton case would be held up as an example of "what happens when cities try to do this".

Oh, I'm quite sure the usual suspects would come out of the woodwork here just as they did when a modest improvement to the lower part of Chebucto Rd was attempted some years ago - I recall some wingnut chaining himself up in a tree, etc. The mistake made there was HRM not going far enough in an attempt to placate such groups. It makes no difference what is sugges5ed, such groups will never be happy. Lesson learned is hopefully to be much more bold in what is proposed this time around since the amount of blowback will not change..

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

KWC's LRT system on the other hand seems to have gone well but I never hear about it outside of SSP.

It was a while ago and I don't know where I read it but I recall reading travel time predictions for the Kitchener LRT and they were extremely modest, as in something like 7 mins saved for some long-ish trips exactly following the route. Not sure if that was travel time or travel and wait time.

I rarely see a clear analysis of a transit system that looks at the cost versus difference in service levels.

It is true that with LRT vs. buses there are some advantages that are difficult to quantify. Mainly comfort/appeal and permanence of the infrastructure. These days there's also the question of saving on operating costs through automation. It is technically feasible in 2020 to have a system that isn't 100% separated yet is still automated.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

It was a while ago and I don't know where I read it but I recall reading travel time predictions for the Kitchener LRT and they were extremely modest, as in something like 7 mins saved for some long-ish trips exactly following the route. Not sure if that was travel time or travel and wait time.

I rarely see a clear analysis of a transit system that looks at the cost versus difference in service levels.

The other thing that often gets overlooked is that even if the current estimated time savings are 7 min (vs driving?) the LRT will presumably continue to go just as fast 10 years from now while the street traffic might be way worse. So it might end up being a time saving of 17 or 27 minutes at some point not too far from now. And the time savings "vs. in traffic, if the system had never been built" would probably be even greater.

[goodgrowth]

Kitchener-Waterloo had around the current population of HRM when they approved LRT. Of course you could argue that city had pretty reliable/predicable growth so it made sense but I think if Halifax sees strong growth continue in the next year or two it should consider it. I mean when you are thinking about building LRT it isn't about now it's about 10 years from now.

It's seems like any of these highly centralized transit systems can be risky though. But Halifax would have multiple examples in Canada to look at what went right and what went wrong.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Kitchener-Waterloo had around the current population of HRM when they approved LRT. Of course you could argue that city had pretty reliable/predicable growth so it made sense but I think if Halifax sees strong growth continue in the next year or two it should consider it. I mean when you are thinking about building LRT it isn't about now it's about 10 years from now.

It's seems like any of these highly centralized transit systems can be risky though. But Halifax would have multiple examples in Canada to look at what went right and what went wrong.

How large is HRM? How large is Waterloo Region? Once you realize that, you will understand why the Ion works well. That is also why an LRT should really be on the peninsula, and possibly under the harbour to Dartmouth.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How large is HRM? How large is Waterloo Region? Once you realize that, you will understand why the Ion works well. That is also why an LRT should really be on the peninsula, and possibly under the harbour to Dartmouth.

The size of the municipalities or metro areas doesn't matter. Most of HRM is empty. It's the demand along potential LRT corridors that matters.

The key factor in KW getting LRT first is that it got federal and provincial funding. NS doesn't really fund transit much and doesn't currently have swing ridings.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

The size of the municipalities or metro areas doesn't matter. Most of HRM is empty. It's the demand along potential LRT corridors that matters.

The key factor in KW getting LRT first is that it got federal and provincial funding. NS doesn't really fund transit much and doesn't currently have swing ridings.

The geography of KWC probably made LRT a bit simpler to develop there than it would be in Halifax, Victoria, or even London (which theoretically would have the same "funding" advantages). The Tri-Cities region is defined by a basically linear series of focal points which likely made planning the initial route quite a bit easier and less controversial than it might normally be - and in fact the next phase seems pretty clear - extend it through Preston and Galt by simply continuing on in the same direction. Durham Region is actually even more like that although it's already oriented fairly heavily around the GO network.

London (+ surrounding area) is arranged more or less exactly like the Prairie cities. Halifax and Victoria (and QC) are a bit more complicated.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by someone123

A revised BRT map for Halifax:


Source

Would this be a map that would be used for a possible LRT system in Halifax? IMO, I would just change the purple line right from the jump to LRT. But that's just me.

It's seems like any of these highly centralized transit systems can be risky though. But Halifax would have multiple examples in Canada to look at what went right and what went wrong.

Alright, let's run through some LRT examples that are in operation currently. I included the Skytrain on here since it is technically classified as LRT (although ALRT) whereas Toronto and Montreal's systems are classified as heavy-metros. West to East?

Vancouver Skytrain
- 79.6km of track (longest metro in Canada, currently!)
- 53 Stations
- Fastest growing system in Canada since 1986 (currently, we are about to lose our spot though to Montreal and Toronto!)
- Driverless
- All grade-separated
- Extremely Reliable
- Easy to extend.


Calgary Ctrain LRT
- 59.9km of track
- 45 Stations
- Last extended in 2014
- Has Drivers
- The downtown corridor is at grade
- Most of it is at-grade, crossing traffic occasionally. Accidents have occurred in the past but not reported as frequently as Edmonton's system.


Edmonton LRT
- 24.3km of track
- 18 Stations
- Last extended in 2014
- Has Drivers
- Downtown corridor is underground.
- Most of it is at-grade, crossing traffic. Frequent complaints of accidents.


Kitchener/Waterloo ION LRT
- 19 km of track
- 19 stations
- Just opened and operational in 2019
- Has drivers
- Operates more like a streetcar. Most of it is integrated with automobile traffic.
- Not grade separated at all.


Toronto TTC Streetcar System
- 83 km of track (that's what you get when you keep your streetcars from 1861!)
- 685 Stops - not stations!
- Has drivers
- Operates as a streetcar. Most of the track is integrated with autmobile traffic.
- Some grade separation at key areas like the Queens Quay tunnel.


Ottawa LRT (Confederation/Trillium)
- 20.5 km of track
- 18 stations (total)
- Confederation line just opened and is operational in 2019
- Both lines have drivers.
- Both lines are completely grade-separated.
- The Confederation line is in the press a lot with their operational issues.

And there we have it, I think!

I'm a little biased on this but I obviously think that an ALRT grade separated system is the way to go since it is much cheaper and much more reliable. The more grade separation, the better whether it is elevated, underground or whatever. The best bang for your buck is with ALRT.

I do, however, think that the Confederation Line is just "trending" with its operational difficulties. Personally I think that introducing a totally new system in the dead of winter wasn't a great idea; I feel like their operational issues will work themselves out by summertime.

London (+ surrounding area) is arranged more or less exactly like the Prairie cities. Halifax and Victoria (and QC) are a bit more complicated.

I absolutely agree. Halifax, Victoria, and QC all have significant heritage neighbourhoods and buildings that they want to protect as well as having complicated city layouts that don't lend themselves so easily to transportation corridors. This makes it hard for the taxpayers because people will either want to bury the line underground or keep it all at-grade street level - and at that, the NIMBYs want the train mixed with traffic. LRT and ALRT should be implemented as a rapid transit solution, taking advantage of as many grade separated opportunities as physically possible.

Whereas a Streetcar-style LRT like the TTC is useful with addressing capacity issues.

The problem is that we have been implementing LRT systems mixed with traffic (like ION, Edmonton, Calgary, and Toronto's Eglinton line) and then marketing them as a rapid transit solution which leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

The geography of KWC probably made LRT a bit simpler to develop there than it would be in Halifax, Victoria, or even London (which theoretically would have the same "funding" advantages). The Tri-Cities region is defined by a basically linear series of focal points which likely made planning the initial route quite a bit easier and less controversial than it might normally be - and in fact the next phase seems pretty clear - extend it through Preston and Galt by simply continuing on in the same direction. Durham Region is actually even more like that although it's already oriented fairly heavily around the GO network.

London (+ surrounding area) is arranged more or less exactly like the Prairie cities. Halifax and Victoria (and QC) are a bit more complicated.

Yep. I think this is a big factor for Halifax. There's no single great alignment.

That green line for example would be pretty good for LRT but it still doesn't quite serve downtown, and it's unclear how you'd balance out serving downtown, the hospitals, and the universities. If those were all along the green line stops it would be a great alignment for LRT, and probably well worth it. Once you start talking about multiple lines and connections or different trains that split off and go to different places it gets more expensive and some of the time advantage is lost.

In a city with complicated geography it may make sense to invest in a bunch of medium-sized projects instead of really good service for one route that will only serve a small part of the metro area. Then again I think it's underappreciated how something like LRT can shape future development.

[alps]

Here's a light rail alignment concept I did in 2017 (before the talks with CN on commuter rail fell through). The idea was to use existing rail corridors, the former rail corridor along the dockyard/shipyard, the power line ROW in Clayton Park, etc. It would serve downtown, designated growth areas such as the Halifax Shopping Centre, and the universities.



Potential future extensions:

[Hali87]

This is a bit of a thought experiment I did before taking a good look at the latest proposed network (excuse the hack job in Paint). It's based around the premise that a relatively small amount of investment in each line (compared to alternatives) would allow for consistent travel times (and thus reliable transfers), and in most cases, speeds above 50km/h. The white dots are just transfer points; each line would have a few more stops than what's marked. Black dots are the existing terminals that I could think of. The key is that the brown and blue lines would come first. The rest could be established in whatever order is easiest. The grey route would probably be the most challenging one, and isn't integral. This would be easiest to do with buses initially although many of the lines could be converted to rail at some point if it makes sense.

The most conspicuous difference (to me) is that my idea used the MacKay and 111, while the actual proposal uses the MacDonald Bridge (how will this work..?) and doesn't use the 111, which IMO is a huge missed opportunity.

[Keith P.]

Any BRT proposal that uses the Macdonald bridge needs to have the "R" removed from its acronym.

[IanWatson]

I think this BRT is pretty exciting and could eventually lay the groundwork for LRT. The BRT means HRM will actually set aside ROW for transit in those areas that aren't dense yet, but will get developed someday (I'm thinking areas like Kempt Road).

There are some areas, like North and Robie, that are going to be a challenge to get ROW. It's going to take time. The BRT will give us rapid transit in the interim, and give Council a reason to work on acquiring ROW for in the areas where we don't currently have it. It's easier politically and financially to build up that ROW piece-meal. Eventually the BRT will have an entirely dedicated ROW, and it can be converted to LRT.