Halifax Transit

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is a very abstract line of reasoning.

What stands out to me is that people in Halifax often have a more negative view of the future or of about what's possible or needed infrastructure or development-wise even if the statistics show that the city is growing as much as or more than other cities where the population tends to be much more positive.

For example here in Vancouver it's generally accepted that there's a lot of growth and major infrastructure development is needed. Vancouver is currently growing slower than Halifax is. Vancouver's transit capital investment is probably 10-20x that of Halifax even thought the metro area is more like 6x the population.

This pattern repeats itself over and over in many areas and the general negative bias is more severe than most parts of North America that I've seen. There really is a lingering defeatist mentality.

Abstract? I feel that i was quite specific in my concerns about monorail proposal in that the large, imposing overhead structures - particularly the stations - would not be a positive addition to the downtown cityscape. Questioning if this is actually the best transit solution compared to alternatives is not being defeatist. If I was suggesting that it was impossible for any higher order transit to be built, then sure. But we're having a discussion about what type of transit would be the best solution. So I don't see how any of this is negative or abstract unless you feel that someone pointing what they consider to be the downsides of any potential plan as being too negative?

Sorry but I'm totally lost lol.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

So I don't see how any of this is negative or abstract unless you feel that someone pointing what they consider to be the downsides of any potential plan as being too negative?

It simply stands out to me how Halifax discussion tends to revolve more around reasons why things shouldn't happen or why something would make someone unhappy. These reasons may be perfectly rational and objective but the framing and weighting is subjective.

The combination of worrying about costs and aesthetics is also kind of weird when you think of it. We don't want to spend money and we're only interested in beautiful stuff so nothing is good for us and we'll just have a city full of lurching diesel buses (hopefully converted to electrics in the future)? Also most of the existing infrastructure in Halifax is incredibly utilitarian and a lot of it is worn-out looking. Is a city that has decrepit crooked wooden utility poles and wires along some of its major streets really that picky? It's easy to be picky about hypothetical projects when being picky requires less ambition.

[Nouvellecosse]

I think that would be a valid point in this case if I hadn't been enthusiastically supportive of a number of other plans including non-bus options. For instance, i actually posted a fantasy map proposing an LRT system with some short underground segments several months ago and I also indicated support of various commuter rail proposals before they were consecutively quashed. And remember, I personally DO want to spend money.

Honestly, if I somehow learned that the elevated monorail was the only way Halifax would ever have a higher order transit service (perhaps I were clairvoyant or something) or even that it was much likelier to be built, obviously I would much prefer it over the status quo. I enjoy fantasizing about the "if I were king" type scenarios just as much as anyone, but Halifax Transit did clearly state that they're not considering anything rail-based (I assume that equally includes mono and duo) so none of the non-bus options are very likely at the moment. Therefore, from a fantasy standpoint we don't really need to consider pragmatism, and from a pragmatic, real-world standpoint we don't need to consider any non-bus systems.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think that would be a valid point in this case if I hadn't been enthusiastically supportive of a number of other plans including non-bus options. For instance, i actually posted a fantasy map proposing an LRT system with some short underground segments several months ago and I also indicated support of various commuter rail proposals before they were consecutively quashed. And remember, I personally DO want to spend money.

My post was about the general atmosphere in the city though, and comments about how people in Halifax won't go for this or that (e.g. won't like elevated rail because it will be unattractive or they will perceive it as unattractive). I wasn't trying to say that you are being negative, although I do think sometimes you suppose others will be negative when it's unclear. We don't really know how receptive HRM residents would be to an elevated rail project. No modern project has been proposed and presented in a way that any meaningful feedback can be collected. I suspect that if true feedback were collected from the wider community, most of whom are stuck in traffic rather than peninsula-based retirees, it would be much more positive than the Herald grumblers suggest.

I do think there can be a problem where some people are unjustifiably super negative and then others are cautiously balanced in approach, so the overall balance is negative. You see an attempt to fight this a bit with movements like YIMBY. People in the YIMBY movement don't generally think that endless housing construction is an unalloyed good but they recognize that the prevalence of NIMBYism means that advocacy for construction is important. If you choose to advocate a position publicly to shift opinion a bit but you focus on being balanced instead of choosing the message that moves the needle in a positive direction you won't get anywhere. Your opponents will just point out that even you aren't confident in your position while their position is clearly superior.

[Nouvellecosse]

Living here, full time, for the last 20+ years and interacting with people here on a daily basis, I wish i felt as "unclear" about the local negativity. I've had my heart broken by high expectations a few too many times i think.

[Hali87]

I'll start by mentioning that my first thought re: monorail is that there are too many Simpsons fans here for that to ever get past the suggestion phase (have there been any monorail systems built in North America since that episode first aired?). I also tend to assume that a raised system would be the least palatable option for the public, unless it's designed very well, due to aesthetic concerns. If it turns out to be an excellent deal financially, results in significant time savings, and can be made better-than-ok-looking it could work. A gondola/cable car system is something that I've always thought would work well here as well (handles any incline well and the structure itself doesn't take up very much space). This exists as a transit option in Oregon and I believe Burnaby and Edmonton are both developing systems.


As for raised monorail downtown, I tend to agree that it wouldn't work very well to just suspend it over Barrington Street. It wouldn't necessarily have to follow the street though - it could pass over buildings and between them. That's one of the advantages. [edit: the viewplanes, and the way that they have shaped development downtown, could actually be a huge advantage here under the right circumstances]

New buildings could be built so that the monorail passes through them. Detroit's small downtown train loop (not a monorail - actually the same components as the original SkyTrain lines) has stations integrated into a bunch of office buildings - you just walk out onto a balcony and there are trains there. Overall the system there was aesthetically similar to the pedways here and not really any more or less visually intrusive IMO. Presumably a downtown subway could integrate into the basements of buildings - it's not hard to imagine the lower levels of the Maritime Centre having transit service. It works like that in a lot of places in exactly that type of building.


Source

[Phalanx]

I don't think there's any kind of one-size-fits-all solution for Halifax (or any city, really). I don't think putting a suspended monorail on Barrington would be the best option, but I could see it working very well along corridors like Robie (it first came to mind when thinking about solutions for the transition between the wider and narrower sections of the street that didn't involve tunneling) and maybe South Street (wide and 'modern' enough to accommodate a suspended monorail, would offer connections to the universities and downtown and the rail station if/when commuter rail ever becomes a thing).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If someone feels that there are important reasons why something shouldn't happen, why would they or should they focus solely on making it happen? Let's face it. I would never hesitate to support something that i was 100% sold on just because I was afraid of opposition. But if I'm not really certain myself then I'm not in much of a position to help provide the strong advocacy needed to win people over.

Also, maybe I'm misinterpreting swimmer but are we actually using the Cogswell exchange as an example of why we should move forward with something despite strong opposition? I'm sure there are examples one could use to make that case, but at this point it's basically a consensus that the Cogs Ex was a big mistake that scarred the downtown cityscape for years and that we're still trying to correct. This would best be used an example for someone making the opposite point (which i don't wish to make).

I wasn't referring to you directly, or even any of the other forum members, actually. Typically I expect SSP members to be pro-development, pro-transit, etc.

However, having said that, I've been a little surprised to read through this thread and encounter the negativity that I have. A ferry won't work because we have fog, rail transit won't work because it doesn't go deep enough into the city, a monorail won't work because people won't like the way it looks, etc etc.

If forward-thinking SSP members are thinking like that, then I can only imagine that the NIMBYs and defenders of frugality in Halifax are at least 10X more extreme in their views. Which is probably why rail and ferry transit has been discussed and killed in favour of maintaining the status quo more often than I care to count over the past few decades.

As witnessed over and over again, the easy way out is always to find reasons why we shouldn't do something, especially when the project is difficult and expensive. Which is why we will likely just end up with more buses until the city is forced to look at another alternative, because adding buses just won't work anymore.

Instead, the city only seems to set their sights as high as the proverbial low hanging fruit, like adding bicycle lanes, bus lanes, etc. to existing routes. I hate to say it, but I think Keith is absolutely correct in his assertion that we can't expect bicycle traffic to move people to the extent that a good transit system would (the idea of bicycle commuting has been around for a long time, and doesn't seem to be growing at any great rate), and yet it seems to be the only thing the city seems to be trying to improve on besides adding buses. Perhaps it's because it's cheap to paint some lines on the road and say that we've created a new mode of transportation, I'm not sure. I've held out hope for a few years that bicycle use would catch on en masse, and help to alleviate the city's traffic issues, but that just hasn't happened. So maybe we should advocate more for transit options that will work and use the resources put aside for bicycle transportation for something else in the mean time (starting with the $7+ million flyover ramp).

Of course, as we all know, we aren't the ones making decisions here, just talking about them. So at least it makes for interesting conversation even though we won't actually accomplish anything.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I wasn't referring to you directly, or even any of the other forum members, actually. Typically I expect SSP members to be pro-development, pro-transit, etc.

However, having said that, I've been a little surprised to read through this thread and encounter the negativity that I have. A ferry won't work because we have fog, rail transit won't work because it doesn't go deep enough into the city, a monorail won't work because people won't like the way it looks, etc etc.

If forward-thinking SSP members are thinking like that, then I can only imagine that the NIMBYs and defenders of frugality in Halifax are at least 10X more extreme in their views. Which is probably why rail and ferry transit has been discussed and killed in favour of maintaining the status quo more often than I care to count over the past few decades.

As witnessed over and over again, the easy way out is always to find reasons why we shouldn't do something, especially when the project is difficult and expensive. Which is why we will likely just end up with more buses until the city is forced to look at another alternative, because adding buses just won't work anymore.

I appreciate that and I do indeed consider myself to be pro-transit. I would say that reason why nothing has happened with higher order transit despite talking about it for decades is that these things are hard and we're a very small city (for such things) and was even smaller in prior decades. Montreal started seriously talking about building a subway around the turn of the century. The Montreal Subway Company was founded in 1902 when it had a similar population as Halifax of today. Yet the first line didn't open until 1966. If you look at then hundreds or thousands of cities in the 1/2 million range globally, or even just in the most developed countries, very few have higher order transit systems. Our lack of one doesn't doesn't mean we're particularly bad at this any more than someone failing to make a podium finish at the Olympics makes them a slow runner. We all want the gold, but let's keep things in perspective. This is a narrative better suited to the Seattles and Houstons of the world who get their first starter LRT lines as a metro area of millions.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Instead, the city only seems to set their sights as high as the proverbial low hanging fruit, like adding bicycle lanes, bus lanes, etc. to existing routes. I hate to say it, but I think Keith is absolutely correct in his assertion that we can't expect bicycle traffic to move people to the extent that a good transit system would (the idea of bicycle commuting has been around for a long time, and doesn't seem to be growing at any great rate), and yet it seems to be the only thing the city seems to be trying to improve on besides adding buses. Perhaps it's because it's cheap to paint some lines on the road and say that we've created a new mode of transportation, I'm not sure. I've held out hope for a few years that bicycle use would catch on en masse, and help to alleviate the city's traffic issues, but that just hasn't happened. So maybe we should advocate more for transit options that will work and use the resources put aside for bicycle transportation for something else in the mean time (starting with the $7+ million flyover ramp).

We can advocate for all types of mobility solutions without pitting them against one another. You can want the city to maintain sidewalk and fix potholes just as you can want a strong transit plan and cycling infrastructure.

In terms of cycling specifically, I think you've already identified why there hasn't been as big a cycling increase as we hoped despite the city's recent efforts. It's because their plans have for the most part been in the form of "cheap paint" as you so eloquently put it, rather than actual substance which often requires money and difficult trade offs. Bicycle infrastructure should not be the lowest hanging fruit - that just happens to be the way the city has approached it... with predictable results. Transit has not seen major ridership growth over the recent past either and in fact has declined slightly yet you don't use that as a reason to abandon it. Yes transit does (and will continue to) carry far more people, but it also will continue to require far greater funding as well (especially when you combine both capital cost and operating costs). I think you'll find that on a per capita basis investments in cycling infrastructure will reap a payoff very competitive to investments in transit so pitting one against the other is something I will absolutely not support.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I appreciate that and I do indeed consider myself to be pro-transit. I would say that reason why nothing has happened with higher order transit despite talking about it for decades is that these things are hard and we're a very small city (for such things) and was even smaller in prior decades. Montreal started seriously talking about building a subway around the turn of the century. The Montreal Subway Company was founded in 1902 when it had a similar population as Halifax of today. Yet the first line didn't open until 1966. If you look at then hundreds or thousands of cities in the 1/2 million range globally, or even just in the most developed countries, very few have higher order transit systems. Our lack of one doesn't doesn't mean we're particularly bad at this any more than someone failing to make a podium finish at the Olympics makes them a slow runner. We all want the gold, but let's keep things in perspective. This is a narrative better suited to the Seattles and Houstons of the world who get their first starter LRT lines as a metro area of millions.

I understand your points, and the logic is sound. However, I'm viewing this from the perspective of Halifax being a very old city (like Montreal, but on a smaller scale) and is thus more challenging to introduce new forms of transit due to tight street layouts, so there should be some planning now to adjust for expected future growth (which appears to be happening at a greater rate than the past). Like you say, it takes years (decades) to put something in place, by careful planning and problem-solving, but continually there doesn't seem to be any progress towards even considering what the challenges may be.

Additionally, and this is admittedly more personal, it is frustrating that Halifax once relied on electric forms of transit (rail trolleys, and then later electric buses aka 'trolleycoaches'), and now seems to be mired in diesel buses for the foreseeable future. It's frustrating in these days of climate change awareness to not see some effort to improve this, and at least start some planning towards building a system that larger cities have already been using for decades.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

We can advocate for all types of mobility solutions without pitting them against one another. You can want the city to maintain sidewalk and fix potholes just as you can want a strong transit plan and cycling infrastructure.

In terms of cycling specifically, I think you've already identified why there hasn't been as big a cycling increase as we hoped despite the city's recent efforts. It's because their plans have for the most part been in the form of "cheap paint" as you so eloquently put it, rather than actual substance which often requires money and difficult trade offs. Bicycle infrastructure should not be the lowest hanging fruit - that just happens to be the way the city has approached it... with predictable results. Transit has not seen major ridership growth over the recent past either and in fact has declined slightly yet you don't use that as a reason to abandon it. Yes transit does (and will continue to) carry far more people, but it also will continue to require far greater funding as well (especially when you combine both capital cost and operating costs). I think you'll find that on a per capita basis investments in cycling infrastructure will reap a payoff very competitive to investments in transit so pitting one against the other is something I will absolutely not support.

Of course you make good points. 'Cheap paint' is what we are using now... it barely makes it through a winter season these days. But I am still yet to be convinced that more expensive infrastructure will yield a greater volume of bicycle ridership, as opposed to simply a more pleasurable (and safer, to be sure) riding experience. My hopes are that it would, but it's a difficult argument to put all our eggs in the basket of infrastructure that mostly benefits young, able, healthy bicycle riders vs all transit users of all ages and abilities.

However, you make a good point about competing budgets. I agree that we should be advocating for improved transit (perhaps buses and ferries and rail) alongside improved bicycle infrastructure, while still maintaining decent roads for cars and trucks (to be converted to electric someday). Mobility for all, in a sense. From what I've seen (the 'can't do' point of view), though, it seems like we should consider ourselves lucky if we just get a few more buses and painted lines... it's hard to imagine Halifax 'going for broke' and trying to put in place more/better options all at once - and as you say, maybe Halifax isn't big enough to warrant this yet. But I do feel that the cloud of negativity that seems to hang over us appears to limit our ability to see the sun on the other side...

[someone123]

I think it's true that none of the rapid transit proposals that have come along so far have been that great, and the city isn't large enough for a billion dollar project that serves only one corridor.

However, at the end of the day Halifax's transportation infrastructure is flawed and is not keeping up with population growth. Halifax has some of the worst traffic in North America for a city of its size and in Europe it would have one of the worst transit systems.

While Canadian cities stack up well against American cities for transit, they have much more limited road and highway infrastructure. A lot of Canadian cities are in a worst of both worlds situation compared to the rest of the developed world. Okay but not great roads and okay but not great transit, minimal new development and high population growth.

In many Canadian cities, Halifax included, there's been a cultural shift against road and highway construction. That's fine, but there needs to be some kind of transportation development to keep up with population growth. Currently it's not happening. If Haligonians truly are largely spendthrifts who only want beautiful infrastructure then I hope they enjoy sitting in traffic, because that's the trade-off.

[goodgrowth]

I think in a lot of Canada(and North America I guess) cities are too reactionary when it comes to implementing transit solutions.

If transit solutions were implemented on a pro-active basis you'd encourage growth while heading off congestion problems before they occur.

What's weird is in a country like Canada where it is very pro-growth in terms of population/economics is how lackadaisical some jurisdictions are when it comes to forward-looking infrastructure.

Of course this is predicated that those solutions work. Ottawa's LRT woes don't help with these arguments.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

I think in a lot of Canada(and North America I guess) cities are too reactionary when it comes to implementing transit solutions.

If transit solutions were implemented on a pro-active basis you'd encourage growth while heading off congestion problems before they occur.

What's weird is in a country like Canada where it is very pro-growth in terms of population/economics is how lackadaisical some jurisdictions are when it comes to forward-looking infrastructure.

Of course this is predicated that those solutions work. Ottawa's LRT woes don't help with these arguments.

I feel like we need a history lesson. I think many people tend to forget the history and how it has changed the city.

In 1917, something happened that changed the future of Halifax, I am talking about the Halifax Explosion.

So, for your history lesson, we are going to talk about 2 cities. One with a population of over 400,000, and one with a population of over 1,200,000.

Halifax, and Calgary. In the 1911 census, Calgary had half the population of Halifax, but by the late 1960s, Calgary was equal, and rose much higher. Yes, there are many reasons for that, and some may want to argue that it was due to the oil boom, but, what about Halifax? Halifax has the largest deep water, ice free port in Canada. One could argue it should be sitting around 1 million people. However, the fact that it also houses the largest magazine in Canada in it's port may also have something to do with it.

The interesting thing about Calgary, and Edmonton is they built their LRTs when their population hit around 400,000-500,000. The Ion is in a place with just under 400,000.

So, I can see within the next 10 years, if a pro transit government is elected municipally, provincially, and federally, that an LRT will be built. The city is at the point where it can be a success. We just need governments to want it.

[Citizen_Bane]

Great topic. He's my two cents worth. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that traffic congestion is the number one issue HRM Transit is trying to solve... congestion and traffic woes in the downtown streets and parking areas and where highways empty onto the peninsula and on the bridges. Perhaps heading off some of the congestion where it begins to build is the solution? Hear me out. In the not too distant future we'll have the 107 joining the 102 and 101 (nearly) converging near the north end of the Bedford Basin. I suggest this area would be a perfect spot to build a multi story commuter parkade with grocery retail and gas/charge station. I envision this area as the first/final stop of an LRT route that would head south utilizing the soon to be much less busy Bedford Bypass and along the east side of the basin on Windmill then ramping up to the newly replaced McKay which would need a rail lane (with a stop at Shannon Park). Once across the McKay then over to Joe Howe followed by a Mumford area stop and then into the rail cut where it would not stop until reaching a Point Pleasant Park station. The Via Station next then along Barrington Street with a stop at George Street (vacant lot there) then onto the newly available Cogswell lands followed by a stop at the Dockyard south gate. I won't now list all of the 25 stops I've envisioned but, to continue the route, the LRT would proceed down Barrington and pass under the McKay/through a 'McKay' station before proceeding along the west side of the Bedford Basin and completing its circuit near the top of Dartmouth Road...the main station at the convergence of the 100 series highways. Plenty of space in this area to build a train shed too. The route is basically a big figure 8. With trains following each other in frequent succession a passenger not wanting to travel the entire 8 could, for instance, disembark a north bound train and board a south bound train at the central 'McKay' station and re-circle the peninsula...reverse disembark /board to circle the basin.

In this climate of climate change and desire to meet emissions reduction targets I don't see a fuel sucking fast ferry making much sense. And I can't help but think the city has more leverage than ever before to convince the federal government to act on the behalf of HRM to secure rights to utilize existing rail beds regardless of who own them. Also, I think that a sliver of the Magazine lands right above Admiral Cove park would be an excellent spot for the commuter parkade. Again, the federal government wants to support HRM in reducing emission does it not? Give HRM some of that under utilized Magazine land.

Regarding BRT and regular bus transit routes, maybe the routes are just too long? Consider that the greater distance a bus has to travel the more opportunity it has to encounter an obstacle to maintaining its schedule. BRT advance lights are fine but don't most accidents in the city occur at intersections? Especially at rush hour? Depending on the resulting carnage from an auto accident an intersection may become impassable for a time. Therefore, if my reasoning holds water, buses on shorter routes are more likely to maintain their schedules. The point I'm trying to get to here is that short bus routes running perpendicular to the basin up and down and up and down the hillsides surrounding the basin could deliver passengers to and from the LRT with very good adherence to posted schedules. Buses on the peninsula and buses in Dartmouth could improve their adherence to schedule by adopting shorter routes that would not head out of the area.

Synergies. Is the city adverse? Our Bedford Basin and surrounds are quite beautiful. Picture some LRT stations with small decks/seating areas with cafes and stunning views. Could rentable space be built-in to some stops/stations to offset construction and operations costs? Think tourism. Think of stops at Point Pleasant, Hemlock Ravine, Admiral Cove, Africville/Seaview Park, Mill Cove/DeWolfe Park, downtown Bedford, downtown waterfront Halifax...all good and all on this route.

[someone123]

The latest BRT report includes a section on electric buses: https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/regional-council/200526rc917.pdf

I haven't had time to read it all but I wonder if almost all of the fleet renewal and expansion this decade could be electrics.

This report also has a 2020-2030 timeframe for building the BRT routes while the older plans called for tweaking the routes over 15 years.

[someone123]

Here's the map from the report, which seems about the same as the last one:



One thing I wonder is why there are two separate, partly-overlapping yellow and red lines, with yellow also overlapping green at QEII. An alternative would be to run yellow from Oxford to Coburg Road and continue that on across the bridge and out to Portland Hills.

The green line is interesting. I mused about a Robie corridor a little while ago. I think it'll be more important in the future as the city grows. And that "8" shape on the peninsula covered by all of the lines does a pretty good job of providing access to the urban core.

I could also see this working for visitors as a simplified transit network. But it's missing some connections like the airport shuttle and South End train station (which it doesn't connect up to at all).

[Citizen_Bane]

I wonder if the new Bedford Basin ferries would be considered rapid transit? FRT(s).

The Lwr. Sackville BRT route isn't illustrated. Perhaps because it is unchanged?

[Querce]

There is no, and has been no proposed BRT route to Lower Sackville. This isn't replacing the existing transit network, it's being added to it

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Querce

There is no, and has been no proposed BRT route to Lower Sackville. This isn't replacing the existing transit network, it's being added to it

There was MetroLink service to Lower Sackville (185). Wikipedia says it was discontinued in 2019. Not sure if it was replaced with some other service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroLink_(Halifax)

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by Citizen_Bane

I wonder if the new Bedford Basin ferries would be considered rapid transit? FRT(s).

FART. perfect.