Halifax Transit

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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

Picture this. You are in your car, stuck in traffic. A stream of buses speed past you and cross the bridge. Then, moments later, a stream of buses coming the other way speed right by you.

If they were to set up a bus only lane on the bridge, and coming and going on each side of the bridge, they could have a traffic light system with detectors to see where the buses are and you could run it like a gauntlet track. It could stll be reasonably rapid.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by scryer

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.


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.

An elevated system would free you of geography, traffic, and possibly better with regards to snow accumulation than an at grade system(?)

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by 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).

FWIW, you can create custom maps in Google (See My Maps). You can add custom POIs (they have pre-made icons for transit stations, and draw lines connecting them), add layers that can be toggled on or off (IE for different lines, proposals, concepts etc). You can then share them in a read-only mode so people can look, but not touch. Also easier to update and modify if need be.

I've never used it to create a fantasy map, but I've used it for group travel planning (mapping out transit routes for POIs and whatnot).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Picture this. You are in your car, stuck in traffic. A stream of buses speed past you and cross the bridge. Then, moments later, a stream of buses coming the other way speed right by you.

If they were to set up a bus only lane on the bridge, and coming and going on each side of the bridge, they could have a traffic light system with detectors to see where the buses are and you could run it like a gauntlet track. It could stll be reasonably rapid.

I picture outraged commuters tearing down whatever barricades are in place to prevent them from getting to work and then storming City Hall afterwards.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I picture outraged commuters tearing down whatever barricades are in place to prevent them from getting to work and then storming City Hall afterwards.

Spike strips placed along the lines? Combine that with large fines and impounding vehicles, might be enough of a deterrent.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is all true but unless the city moves beyond its usual leisurely pace of development this type of plan won't keep up with demand. The population is growing by over 2% per year and HRM wants to raise the modal share of transit. This means improving transit service levels by 3-5% per year, or 30-50% in a decade (note that the population growth is compounding).

If they had an aggressive plan to get one of these routes up and running, say, in 1-2 years that would be more along the lines of what's needed. Then start planning for LRT in about 5 years, and aim to build something in 10 years, leaving room to adjust the plan as conditions evolve.

Instead the normal HRM pace is commission a study, debate for a year, shelve it, wait 3 years, commission a new study, run a pilot project, shelve for 5 years, commission a new study. There wasn't much of a sense of urgency with this planning in the past. Hopefully it's changed.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Spike strips placed along the lines? Combine that with large fines and impounding vehicles, might be enough of a deterrent.

Such actions would also be a major deterrent to elected officials keeping their jobs.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I picture outraged commuters tearing down whatever barricades are in place to prevent them from getting to work and then storming City Hall afterwards.

Nah... Haligonians are way too chill for that. It would more be a case of having something to complain about at coffee break, or an excuse to come in to work late...

[scryer]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

An elevated system would free you of geography, traffic, and possibly better with regards to snow accumulation than an at grade system(?)

I'm all for elevated systems and I am secretly hoping that Vancouver's Skytrain extension to UBC will elevate westwards after passing Blanca street to save on costs, but I digress...

One of the biggest problems in Vancouver with elevated lines is that it draws the NIMBYs out from the woodwork with torches and pitchforks. If you thought your NIMBYs were bad now, then just you wait until you propose an elevated line over a high-street to save billions on construction.

I'm not sure how an elevated line handles regular snow. With the very few snow days we get in Vancouver, our trains do experience delays since our system will detect an "obstruction" on the track. Couple this with the fact that regular drivers are now switching to Skytraining on a snow day, we get pretty regular service disruptions when these super rare snow days happen. Perhaps an angled "hat" on the tracks would make the world of a difference?

To play devil's advocate, I completely agree that having an elevated line directly over busy streets will change the dynamic of a neighbourhood completely, even detrimentally. Therefore elevated rail options aren't right for every location but it sure beats the hell out of having trains mixed with street traffic.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by scryer

I'm not sure how an elevated line handles regular snow. With the very few snow days we get in Vancouver, our trains do experience delays since our system will detect an "obstruction" on the track. Couple this with the fact that regular drivers are now switching to Skytraining on a snow day, we get pretty regular service disruptions when these super rare snow days happen. Perhaps an angled "hat" on the tracks would make the world of a difference?

Reliability in different weather conditions seems like a big plus for some kind of rapid transit system in Halifax to have. Think of how great it would be on a storm day if some main rail or bus corridors were running normally. It's the same with a potential regular train between Halifax and Moncton; if it's reliable during storms that will be a big plus, and will make it more relaxing to take.

The snow days in Vancouver are not regular at all but it's the kind of thing that causes serious delays on multiple days most years. It's not a freak occurrence (once a decade or less). We had 2 days with >= 10 cm this past winter while YHZ had 6. It's true that a system in Halifax can't be shutting down whenever there's 5 or 10 cm of snow but the Vancouver system probably shouldn't be shutting down either...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

An elevated system would free you of geography, traffic, and possibly better with regards to snow accumulation than an at grade system(?)

The area around downtown would not be able to work with an elevated system due to that which you think it would be free of.... geography, or actually, geology. That is a steep hill to get up Duke or any other street in that area.

[Phalanx]

This may sound crazy, but hear me out here... Suspended Monorail. Very small footprint on the ground, extremely tolerant of snow and ice, and they can handle a relatively steep (compared to other rail options) slope.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

This may sound crazy, but hear me out here... Suspended Monorail. Very small footprint on the ground, extremely tolerant of snow and ice, and they can handle a relatively steep (compared to other rail options) slope.

Example? Any idea of the cost per km to build?

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Example? Any idea of the cost per km to build?

Nothing super authoritative, just some proposals, prototypes and enthusiast research.

https://railway-news.com/crrc-rolls-out-prototype-suspended-monorail-train/
http://www.monorails.org/webpix%202/RyanRKennedy.pdf
http://www.trensquebec.qc.ca/description-of-the-monorail

Not sure on the cost for suspended monorail, though, no. I will note that there's a conventional monorail in Moscow (far worse winters) and conventional and suspended monorails in Tokyo (far worse wind/rain, occasional snow).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Nothing super authoritative, just some proposals, prototypes and enthusiast research.

https://railway-news.com/crrc-rolls-out-prototype-suspended-monorail-train/
http://www.monorails.org/webpix%202/RyanRKennedy.pdf
http://www.trensquebec.qc.ca/description-of-the-monorail

Not sure on the cost for suspended monorail, though, no. I will note that there's a conventional monorail in Moscow (far worse winters) and conventional and suspended monorails in Tokyo (far worse wind/rain, occasional snow).

The suspended monorail could work. I am just concerned it would have such a high cost that it wouldn't be worth it. I wonder what it would be compared to a bored tunnel LRT/metro system.

[Keith P.]

A monorail in Halifax? Bring it on please! The HRM/monorail jokes/memes/gifs/etc would be worth any cost...

[someone123]

A neat one is the Wuppertal Schwebebahn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn

It's an elevated railway system with hanging cars. It was built in 1901, commissioned by Kaiser Wilhelm II; he had his own special car. Germany is a wonderland of strange old engineering projects.

It appears to be a roughly Halifax-sized city but it has barely grown in the last 100 years and it is part of the Rhine-Ruhr region.

[Nouvellecosse]

I think the suspended monorail idea is interesting but I'm not sure how it would fare in the Halifax context. The two main issues with HRM transit are that a) all involved stakeholders are cheap AF and want the short term cheapest option rather than long term investment, and b) that there is a great deal of political opposition to change on a number of fronts.

An elevated monorail would be cheaper than underground transit, but costlier than bus-based transit and likely also costlier than surface-level rail transit whether rail or bus. So cost-wise it has an advantage over some options and a disadvantage compared to others. Politically it has the benefits of not having to take away many (or any?) road lanes which is one political hot-button, but it has the disadvantage of being visually/aesthetically intrusive. Many people would complain that it was ugly (regardless of what it looks like) and many would complain that it affects the "character" of the city and streetscapes. This wouldn't be an issue with an underground system and would be less of an issue with surface-based options.

In a city such as Chicago, the elevated system has become ingrained in the city's character and aesthetic identity over many decades, but if such a system were proposed today (not just there but likely anywhere in the western world) it would be decried as ugly and oppressive, creating dark uninviting streetscapes, noise etc. In fact such elevated systems were seen in such a negative way even when they were new with NYC opting to remove most of the elevated lines in Manhattan replacing them with buried subway. A suspended monorail would be less visually intrusive than the Chicago L, but Halifax also has generally narrower streets and a more quaint self-image compared to Chicago. Whether a Wuppertal type system would have a positive net advantage in Halifax compared to other options I'm really not sure.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Whether a Wuppertal type system would have a positive net advantage in Halifax compared to other options I'm really not sure.

It's interesting in that it's a unique design that serves a geographically challenging area. It's probably not a design that somebody would build again today since it's constrained by some original parameters set over a century ago.

The suspended car design seems like it would be very resilient to weather conditions. Halifax probably has around a dozen really bad weather days a year when travel is impacted, and a system that could get a lot of people moving more or less normally on those days would have great economic value (what's it worth to get 100,000 people to work and school on 1 day? probably a lot).

I am skeptical that Haligonians are strongly focused on quaintness or a small town feel. I think that's what a few voices were obsessed with and to be honest even a lot of them are no longer as active or alive anymore. The quaintness stuff is mostly to be found in the Chronicle Herald circa 2010. They were voices from an older generation that remembered a very different city before the postwar boom era and these days they are mostly pushing 80. There isn't anything quaint about how, say, Sackville Street has been evolving these days. Another good example is the library, which has a modern design that the public have undeniably embraced.

[Nouvellecosse]

Perhaps "quaintness" was the wrong word. A better description would be that Chicago (and many other large cities) seem to be more accepting of harder-edge, industrial or big-city design themes, whereas in Halifax terms or concepts such as "polished," 'friendly," or "inviting" would be preferred. There seems to be much push-back against anything that's associated with large cities since those things tend to be seen as harsh, cold, overbearing and impersonal. I mean, that's hard to deny in a city where a significant number of people are put off even by shortish midrise and highrise buildings due to modest shadows. But that's just the impression that I've drawn based on the ambient chatter I've absorbed during daily life.