The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[biguc]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

But no, it doesn't. If we get to virtually no internal combustion vehicles (only those with no feasible alternative) being sold by 2040, and pursue work to both green the gas grid or electrify heating, while continuing to green the electricity grid, the exact same build form and habits can reduce emissions greatly. No need to transform our society, technology in this case has indeed saved us from making sacrifices.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't encourage changes in habits to make our cities better places to live, with better mobility. Just that the climate case isn't central to that argument, compared to say in 2005 with then current technology.

You're right about the technological improvements. I'm not trying to argue against that. We'll see the biggest difference in developing countries that will be able to get widespread green electricity without even having a grid or local pollution problems, but there's no good reason Canada can't also reap some of that benefit.

My point is that construction and manufacturing are massive emitters. Even if we managed the 20 year greening of heat, electricity, and vehicles that you're talking about--and, again, there's no good reason Canada can't, just the bad reasons that stop Canada from accomplishing a lot of things--people living in new-built, far-flung, oversized houses, with the personal vehicles, and all the other profligacy, will still need to cut their emissions. Canadians, per-capita, emit at over 3x the rate of the French or Swedes. Ignoring the sources of emissions that are out of our direct control will never get us down to their level.

Candians, Americans, and Australians emit at similar, very high rates. All three countries boast a similar suburban, car dependant lifestyle. A lot of their high emission rates are from widespread driving and the energy inefficiencies inherent to detached houses, but the lifestyle also provokes--and requires--a lot of needless consumption. Think of all the basements filled with Bowflexes and air hockey tables that otherwise wouldn't exist.

For something of a control I'm trying to look for Manitoba's rates, where they like to brag about being clean because they have a lot of hydro dams. It looks like their emissions rates are probably higher than the national average. Yet this claims the Alberta oil sands produce more CO2 than 14000 cars, or 3x all of Manitoba (which almost certainly has way more than 14k cars...). Anyway, the whole thing is a bad look for both provinces.

Anyway, if we can make Canada a better place to live with better cities and blitz emissions? Why not?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by biguc

Canadians, Americans, and Australians emit at similar, very high rates. All three countries boast a similar suburban, car dependant lifestyle. A lot of their high emission rates are from widespread driving and the energy inefficiencies inherent to detached houses, but the lifestyle also provokes--and requires--a lot of needless consumption. Think of all the basements filled with Bowflexes and air hockey tables that otherwise wouldn't exist.

I will just say that among those three countries, we have the smallest homes and the highest transit usage.





We do need to help these trends along though.....

Apologies for the older data. Couldn't find nice pretty graphics that are more current.....I doubt much has changed....

Originally Posted by biguc

Anyway, if we can make Canada a better place to live with better cities and blitz emissions? Why not?

Because "somebody else will do it" is the new argument for those who don't actually want to do anything.....

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think those lines really illustrates the point someone made earlier when stating "The problem in Halifax is finding one or two good routes for light rail that justify unusually high investment." The rail cut would have been decent for a longer distance commuter line if CN was more cooperative. With some upgrades it would provide a fast and fairly effective route from Bedford and points along the basin to the Halifax shopping centre area, the universities, and downtown. But for a shorter urban line, it's very poor because of the station locations. The parts of the peninsula it passes through aren't very dense with little opportunity for density increases and there would need to be extensive retrofitting to fit the stations including stairs and elevators into the trench (probably significant widening). In other words, t's a very fringe corridor to be sinking a lot of money into. This is even more pronounced with the Dartmouth rail line which is basically useless as a transit route because it's so out of the way from major residential or commercial areas. There are a handful residences in the walkup catchment areas but it's out of the way for any feeder buses and it would be pointless to travel any significant distance to get to it hoping to save a few minutes from its higher speed when a route on main streets like Windmill or Pleasant would get you there just as fast while providing access to more things (like shops and services) along the way.

With the other routes like Chebucto, Barrington and Windsor, it's hard to make an argument for them versus their alternatives such as Quinpool, Robie, and Gottingen. For instance, one might be wider making it easier to allocate a dedicated lane, but another might have more people and destinations along it who might see decreased service after some trips are diverted to the new corridor. A route that's winder might be good as an express route for longer distance trips while a route that's narrower and more densely built up would be better for shorter urban-oriented trips. So which route do you choose?

That's why until this point the diffuse approach of doing cheaper upgrades to more corridors has made sense. This has included the addition of lanes, signal priority and queue jumps at a variety of key areas.

Thanks for the response. I'll admit I'm pretty ignorant of the reality on the ground in a lot of these places. That CN line has got to be the most obvious-yet-impossible thing going (it's the same story in Winnipeg) and if it weren't for Canada's awkward privatized rail situation I'm confident Halifax would be all over it. That's why Canada should probably establish a serious national rail company again that can lean on CN in ways municipalities can't. Something like Deutsche Bahn that runs suburban rail lines in German cities of all sizes would be a game changer

More to the logistics of it though, the cut looks like it's pretty wide--certainly wide enough to build a single track with platforms on the outside, and as demand increases to build another track outside that, with whatever digging that needs. It doesn't look too unreasonable to get it up to to St. Vincent in that state and nurse it along like Ottawa's Trillium line, figuring out what you need to change as you extend it.

The tram issues, to me, sound like you're spoiled for choice. I'll admit that I'm partial to transit solutions that displace cars, but whatever your reservations on that, reliable, frequent transit is better than not, and that's easier to accomplish with less lines than more. On the other hand, a nice thing about trams is that it's not crazy to think that if, say, a tram on Chebucto got too busy, that you couldn't also build one on Quinpool. That's a good problem to have, and exactly why I like lines down Robie and Barrington.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I will just say that among those three countries, we have the smallest homes and the highest transit usage.





We do need to help these trends along though.....

Apologies for the older data. Couldn't find nice pretty graphics that are more current.....I doubt much has changed....



Because "somebody else will do it" is the new argument for those who don't actually want to do anything.....

Pretty bad numbers from Australia. I always had the impression that they were pretty good at building suburban rail lines, but holy shit do their cities sprawl. And with few of the suburban towers we expect in Canadian cities. I honestly don't know where everyone in Melbourne is supposed to live. For a city that's so many people's "liveability" darling, 15% transit ridership is garbage.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I will just say that among those three countries, we have the smallest homes and the highest transit usage.

Also Canada is closer to Denmark in that graphic than Australia!

I find there are often Canada vs. US comparisons without contrast provided by including other countries. Often the more accurate explanation is not that Canada is "America Jr." but that all countries are roughly the same, for example.

[Innsertnamehere]

Australians love their cars possibly more than any other country on earth - maybe even the US.

I mean Mad Max is Australian after all..


I suspect that space per capita number actually doesn't include basements - which many of those countries in warmer climates typically don't have and are not typically even counted as "habitable space".

[someone123]

Originally Posted by biguc

With this system, almost everywhere in the downtown peninsula would be within 600m of a line.

One drawback of some of these alignments is how they run along the water. This tends to make for lower populations within walking distance of the stations (since people or work only on one side of the rail line). This could be mitigated with some transit-oriented development, although a provincial corporation is in charge of developing most of those areas and they move at a snail's pace.

I think there is something to be said in Halifax for biting the bullet and creating new alignments that fit the city well rather than trying to reuse old ones, except for maybe the main route along the Bedford Basin which would only be suitable for commuter rail anyway. I think a good transit system will invariably involve many routes and modes (e.g. rail plus ferries that connect with bus, plus active transportation).

This isn't a crazy system for a city Halifax's size. In fact, it's pretty comparable to what you'll find in Rostock, Germany.

In Canada people tend to think of the top 1-3 national cities as being "big cities", the next few as "medium", and below that as "small", regardless of absolute size (while for some reason also ignoring much larger cities outside of Canada). This meant treating small Canadian towns like big cities years ago and today it means treating medium-sized metropolitan areas like small towns. Halifax is now larger than Calgary and Edmonton were when they built LRT and is also growing at a high rate (+2.4% per year).

I do think people there are losing the small town mindset, or perhaps we would more accurately call it the defeatist 90's and early 2000's hangover. The city was pretty ambitious in the 1960's but by the 90's, a dark age of Canadian urbanism, that had died and the dominant view was that the city would sort of coast with the inner areas being completely NIMBY dominated while the most exciting development would be sprawl-based (i.e. like many Northeastern US cities today). It sounds like Winnipeg was a bit like that too. If you read the newspaper around 2000 Halifax was discussed locally as a kind of troubled blend of Eastern Germany and Detroit circa 1982.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by biguc

Pretty bad numbers from Australia. I always had the impression that they were pretty good at building suburban rail lines, but holy shit do their cities sprawl. And with few of the suburban towers we expect in Canadian cities. I honestly don't know where everyone in Melbourne is supposed to live. For a city that's so many people's "liveability" darling, 15% transit ridership is garbage.

Jarrett Walker (whom I got the graph from) explains why Australia does poorly. It has a lot to do with how their cities are laid out.

https://humantransit.org/2010/10/further-cause-for-canadian-triumphalism.html

Originally Posted by someone123

Also Canada is closer to Denmark in that graphic than Australia!

I find there are often Canada vs. US comparisons without contrast provided by including other countries. Often the more accurate explanation is not that Canada is "America Jr." but that all countries are roughly the same, for example.

Something often missed in discussions is that Canada actually has somewhat decent transit usage. Almost European levels. What is different from Europe is how much more we drive compared to walking and biking. And how much less we use transit outside of commuting.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by biguc

people living in new-built, far-flung, oversized houses, with the personal vehicles, and all the other profligacy, will still need to cut their emissions.

People in BC, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and soon to be Newfoundland with electric heat/hot water, and an electric car have virtually no own source emissions, and virtually no scope 2 emissions unless they fly somewhere.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Something often missed in discussions is that Canada actually has somewhat decent transit usage. Almost European levels. What is different from Europe is how much more we drive compared to walking and driving. And how much less we use transit outside of commuting.

Calgary exemplifies the commuting-based transit model. Then there are some Canadian cities that have almost no transit, and some that have Europe-like cores where people mostly get around on foot, by bike, or on transit. But those cores in Canadian cities tend to make up 5-20% of the total while in European cities they might be 30-80%.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

People in BC, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and soon to be Newfoundland with electric heat/hot water, and an electric car have virtually no own source emissions, and virtually no scope 2 emissions unless they fly somewhere.

Timeline matters. Achieving the above over the next half century is not as relevant as achieving it over the never decade. And given that most of the provinces on your list still aren't even mandating electric heating, we're a long way off from actually converting completely. EV adoption targets are equally unambitious. 30% of sales by 2030. If that vision holds true the vast majority of Canadian homes will still be heated by gas or oil and more than 80% of vehicles on the road will still be burning petrol or diesel. I hope we do better.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

Calgary exemplifies the commuting-based transit model. Then there are some Canadian cities that have almost no transit, and some that have Europe-like cores where people mostly get around on foot, by bike, or on transit. But those cores in Canadian cities tend to make up 5-20% of the total while in European cities they might be 30-80%.

Exactly. The design of our cities makes achieving higher transit and active transport mode share very difficult.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You can't just use economics as an excuse. Those economics only happen if you invest. Absent active investment and development they won't happen. And let's be clear, even Canada's current plans have a gap from Paris obligations. So there's a lot to be done that requires more than just counting on economics.

You're confusing government extra special environmental subsidy with investment. And assuming that only government extra special environmental subsidy is the way to change investment preferences. Carbon pricing exists, most likely will continue to exist, and to meet our Paris obligations will need to continue to increase.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You are presuming us making substantial investments to make this happen. Yet seem opposed to the very investments necessary on the basis of, "It'll happen on its own....."

Government, companies, and private individuals make all sorts of investments all the time based on the economic conditions which exist. I am saying: technology which displaces carbon has mostly won the economic argument, so for extra special climate investment, you have to look to where it hasn't, and where you can get the best bang for the buck, or are trying to advance a tech which you need in the future to displace carbon. Supporting already economic tech in an extra special way can lead to less reductions overtime!

Supporting an electric bus program in 2010 as an extra special climate program when they barely existed: super awesome! Today? Meh.

What could the government do instead: refuse to fund diesel bus purchases except in exceptional circumstances after 2025 for example.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nonsense. Government invests for many more purposes than cost reduction. Last I checked, the government isn't building the roads you drive on and sidewalks you walk on, just to drive down costs. Those are all enabling infrastructure to facilitate mobility and transportation. And that is, and should always be the primary purpose of public transport investment.

This is money for extra special climate initiatives. There are plenty of reasons to invest in general. We just shouldn't try to justify investments on a pretty weak basis, as it undermines long term support for spending. The government could invest $250 billion on electrical transit over the next 10 years, long distance and short distance, and only reduce emissions by less than 10 megatonnes a year. If I sold the program to the public as a climate program, that looks like a huge miss, undermining long term support for such spending.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

However, the government is already investing billions in public transit. It is doing so for more reasons than just climate change concerns. I am suggesting that there is an opportunity here to invest and focus planned investments towards a complementary goal. Funding the infrastructure is all that is necessary to letting the agencies transition on their own. It's not all that different from investing in public EV charging infrastructure to facilitate person ownership of EVs.

I don't think upper levels of government should dictate what is best to lower levels of government, it violates the principle of subsidiarity, and leads to inefficiencies. Creating extra special funding for a very specific intervention is not the way to reduce emissions the most.

And yes, it is different than funding public EV charging infrastructure. Public EV charging infrastructure right now addresses a barrier to adoption that is a market failure -- not one will build a network until there is a critical mass, but people won't purchase the critical mass until there is a network. There is no barrier to adoption of electric buses by municipalities, as life cycle costs are lower than diesel buses.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nobody has said it is. This is a strawman you keep bringing up.

Yeah, no, there was a post who asserted that transit was at the very least among the best investments the government could make on a climate basis.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Exactly. The design of our cities makes achieving higher transit and active transport mode share very difficult.

I think it depends a lot on the city.

Halifax is older and there's a huge amount of potential for inner city infill. Most construction by value is in the urban core right now and the city is growing by about 2.5% per year, so I'd guess that the overall makeup is shifting significantly toward mixed-use urban neighbourhoods every year. In a decade or two I think it will be a metro of 600,000 or so where over 200,000 live in the urban inner parts (many without cars, and even in medium density buildings with no parking).

The infill in Toronto must be having some overall impact on the metro area.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by someone123

One drawback of some of these alignments is how they run along the water. This tends to make for lower populations within walking distance of the stations (since people or work only on one side of the rail line). This could be mitigated with some transit-oriented development, although a provincial corporation is in charge of developing most of those areas and they move at a snail's pace.

I think there is something to be said in Halifax for biting the bullet and creating new alignments that fit the city well rather than trying to reuse old ones, except for maybe the main route along the Bedford Basin which would only be suitable for commuter rail anyway. I think a good transit system will invariably involve many routes and modes (e.g. rail plus ferries that connect with bus, plus active transportation).



In Canada people tend to think of the top 1-3 national cities as being "big cities", the next few as "medium", and below that as "small", regardless of absolute size (while for some reason also ignoring much larger cities outside of Canada). This meant treating small Canadian towns like big cities years ago and today it means treating medium-sized metropolitan areas like small towns. Halifax is now larger than Calgary and Edmonton were when they built LRT and is also growing at a high rate (+2.4% per year).

I do think people there are losing the small town mindset, or perhaps we would more accurately call it the defeatist 90's and early 2000's hangover. The city was pretty ambitious in the 1960's but by the 90's, a dark age of Canadian urbanism, that had died and the dominant view was that the city would sort of coast with the inner areas being completely NIMBY dominated while the most exciting development would be sprawl-based (i.e. like many Northeastern US cities today). It sounds like Winnipeg was a bit like that too. If you read the newspaper around 2000 Halifax was discussed locally as a kind of troubled blend of Eastern Germany and Detroit circa 1982.

Halifax is probably one of Canada's most exciting cities right now. It's funny to hear about the gloomy local take circa y2k; it is like Winnipeg, minus the NIMBYs. Winnipeg did a lot of interesting, progressive things (alongside some self-destructive things) in the meantime that turned the place around and even gave it a certain momentum that they've since squandered. But I always got the impression that Halifax was just a nice place with good fundamentals that had no reason to not perform. I didn't know how big it had gotten though, or how fast it's growing. That's fantastic. In the long run I'm confident it'll take its place as one of Canada's trademark cities. Investing in transit there is absolutely justified.

You're right about the importance of variety to a good transit system. Ferries make good sense--they're fun and the water already exists. If a Roosevelt Island-style cable car could work under the Macdonald bridge, it would be be about the best thing ever (and connect nicely to a Barrington st tram).

Canadian cities are mostly playing catch-up, at best, with their transit systems, and that leads them to lean on one-size-fits-all solutions. Hence the awkward side of Alberta's LRT sysems and that Calgary-style mode share you mentioned. The C Train is a really good light commuter train but not much else.

That's why nobody should expect a European urban experience somewhere like Vancouver because its mode share stats look European. Vancouver's cycling mode share for commuting might be in the same ballpark as Utrecht, but that's an incredibly unfair comparison. Vancouver just isn't set up the same way for cycling and has way more vehicular traffic going around.

To bring things back around to the environmental side of transit (and city building), that's the tipping point between needing a car or not. European cities are mostly on the other side, and that makes up a lot of the Atlantic Ocean-sized difference in our emissions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

You're confusing government extra special environmental subsidy with investment. And assuming that only government extra special environmental subsidy is the way to change investment preferences. Carbon pricing exists, most likely will continue to exist, and to meet our Paris obligations will need to continue to increase.

And you are assuming that carbon pricing is all that is necessary to achieve our Paris obligations, despite the auditor general saying otherwise. Not to mention that it's quite the assumption to assume that the public will keep supporting increases beyond $50/tonne.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Government, companies, and private individuals make all sorts of investments all the time based on the economic conditions which exist. I am saying: technology which displaces carbon has mostly won the economic argument, so for extra special climate investment, you have to look to where it hasn't, and where you can get the best bang for the buck, or are trying to advance a tech which you need in the future to displace carbon. Supporting already economic tech in an extra special way can lead to less reductions overtime!

Virtually every country that has cut emissions has done so by cutting emissions in the power generation and transport sectors. For the latter, it's widely acknowledged that electrification has to be included (alongside policy options like better urban design, active transport, etc.). Electrification of transport is seen as offering decent return elsewhere. What makes Canada so special?

Also, you say there are alternatives which offer better returns. What are they?

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Supporting an electric bus program in 2010 as an extra special climate program when they barely existed: super awesome! Today? Meh.

It's a good thing I didn't suggest the federal government subsidize the purchase of electric buses.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

What could the government do instead: refuse to fund diesel bus purchases except in exceptional circumstances after 2025 for example.

Or we could simply spend the subsidies we might dole out to transit agencies to buy buses, building the infrastructure they need so that they can acquire electric buses today. No need to wait till 2025. Companies like Proterra will literally offer financing because they can model the operational cost savings and make it cheaper than diesel. All that is needed is a place to charge the buses.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

This is money for extra special climate initiatives. There are plenty of reasons to invest in general. We just shouldn't try to justify investments on a pretty weak basis, as it undermines long term support for spending. The government could invest $250 billion on electrical transit over the next 10 years, long distance and short distance, and only reduce emissions by less than 10 megatonnes a year. If I sold the program to the public as a climate program, that looks like a huge miss, undermining long term support for such spending.

$250 billion? Where did you get that figure? I've suggested $2-4 billion wiring up bus depots and garages. This is all that is needed to let the transit agencies then spend what they normally would, but on BEBs instead of diesel buses.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I don't think upper levels of government should dictate what is best to lower levels of government, it violates the principle of subsidiarity, and leads to inefficiencies. Creating extra special funding for a very specific intervention is not the way to reduce emissions the most.

The government gives specific funds with specific targets all the time. If your province violates the specific standards laid out in the Canada Health Act, they won't be getting health transfers. The feds give out money for specific infrastructure or specific sectors all the time. Government wants to promote certain sectors? Your startup or university research lab will only get funding in that sector. Their money. Their rules.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

And yes, it is different than funding public EV charging infrastructure. Public EV charging infrastructure right now addresses a barrier to adoption that is a market failure -- not one will build a network until there is a critical mass, but people won't purchase the critical mass until there is a network. There is no barrier to adoption of electric buses by municipalities, as life cycle costs are lower than diesel buses.

There is a significant barrier to BEB adoption in charging infrastructure. Do you think running HV lines to bus depots is cheap? This isn't like wiring up a charging spot for a Tesla. When you have 200 buses that need 200-300 kWh battery packs to be charged up in 5-7 hrs overnight, that usually requires work done to the grid. And there's the actual chargers. A single Opportunity Charger costs $1.5M and they usually install them on a 10:1 ratio. Depot chargers cost about $130k. And the usually deploy them on a 2:1 ratio. In theory, that would be $215k per bus in just charging boxes. You seem to be only considering the acquisition cost of the buses themselves.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yeah, no, there was a post who asserted that transit was at the very least among the best investments the government could make on a climate basis.

I never suggested it was "very least". I said it was "low hanging fruit". Which it is, when you consider what it might take to achieve broadscale personal EV adoption or reduce industrial or agricultural emissions. Fleet electrification is low hanging fruit specifically because it can be done easily and in a reasonable timeline. There's fewer players. They aren't sensitive to anything but cost. And they tend to have rolling replacements. They also have massively disproportionate emissions. The diesel bus driving 300 km per day generates substantially more emissions than the Honda Civic owner driving 60 km a day, 5 days a week.

Giving out $5000 cheques to suburbanites to subsidize their commutes from the sprawl they created, is good politics but shitty policy. Building the infrastructure that helps fleets electrify is good policy.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And you are assuming that carbon pricing is all that is necessary to achieve our Paris obligations, despite the auditor general saying otherwise. Not to mention that it's quite the assumption to assume that the public will keep supporting increases beyond $50/tonne.

I don't know what the auditor general said, but carbon pricing would be all that's necessary, if we set the price high enough. If we wish to reduce emissions to the same degree by some other mechanism, due to our own ignorance, then we have to accept higher taxes elsewhere. Likely we will just do neither and either miss the target or just be lucky enough that technology caught up or our economy remains in the doldrums.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't know what the auditor general said, but carbon pricing would be all that's necessary, if we set the price high enough.

In theory? Yes. In reality? The economic dislocation caused by such a price is probably going to get us a government who would simply scrap the carbon tax. I don't get why people assume the carbon tax can't be rolled back. But that's a discussion for another thread....

Originally Posted by milomilo

If we wish to reduce emissions to the same degree by some other mechanism, due to our own ignorance, then we have to accept higher taxes elsewhere.

I find it odd that people think we should only use sticks, when we've used carrots and sticks to promote desired outcomes on most other goals. You don't just stick on high tobacco taxes and call it a day. You usually invest in anti-smoking campaigns and offer free treatments and supports for those who want to quit. Likewise, I would suggest that helping various sectors overcome the initial capital burdens of transitioning is well within the government's bailiwick.

The government is pledging to invest $180 billion in infrastructure over the next 12 years. It would seem logical to me that some of that funding should be targeted at helping transit agencies and municipalities build the infrastructure they need to handle the higher carbon taxes that the federal government intends to impose on them.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Likely we will just do neither and either miss the target or just be lucky enough that technology caught up or our economy remains in the doldrums.

As it stands, we're due to miss anyway. But I would suggest that the primary reason to support electrification isn't GHG emissions. It's the cheaper operational cost. Not only is running on electrons cheaper, it's also more predictable. We won't see wild swings in transit prices or endless last minute city council debates about transit agency budget gaps with electrified fleets because electricity prices are far less volatile. There's also the non-financial benefits like less noise and smog pollution and a more comfortable ride for users. Not to mention that we have excess capacity. Ontario pays New York and Michigan to take its power.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by biguc

Thanks for the response. I'll admit I'm pretty ignorant of the reality on the ground in a lot of these places. That CN line has got to be the most obvious-yet-impossible thing going (it's the same story in Winnipeg) and if it weren't for Canada's awkward privatized rail situation I'm confident Halifax would be all over it. That's why Canada should probably establish a serious national rail company again that can lean on CN in ways municipalities can't. Something like Deutsche Bahn that runs suburban rail lines in German cities of all sizes would be a game changer

More to the logistics of it though, the cut looks like it's pretty wide--certainly wide enough to build a single track with platforms on the outside, and as demand increases to build another track outside that, with whatever digging that needs. It doesn't look too unreasonable to get it up to to St. Vincent in that state and nurse it along like Ottawa's Trillium line, figuring out what you need to change as you extend it.

The tram issues, to me, sound like you're spoiled for choice. I'll admit that I'm partial to transit solutions that displace cars, but whatever your reservations on that, reliable, frequent transit is better than not, and that's easier to accomplish with less lines than more. On the other hand, a nice thing about trams is that it's not crazy to think that if, say, a tram on Chebucto got too busy, that you couldn't also build one on Quinpool. That's a good problem to have, and exactly why I like lines down Robie and Barrington.

I think the bigger possibility is that a route that didn't have both a major increase in speed and didn't have optimal routing would have underwhelming ridership compared to the investment rather than the opposite. Last time I checked, the entire transit system had weekday ridership of around 80k which is similar to Toronto's busiest streetcar route, 504 King. The current busiest bus route #1 only has around 10k. I agree that Halifax is big enough to justify rail, but the question is what benefit it would provide relative to the cost compared to the benefits delivered by investing in other options.

In this route that I created, it would be expensive due to the underground and elevated sections (highlighted by yellow) as well as the street widening for dedicated lanes on Robie and Bayers Rd. Not to mention widening and adding track to the rail corridor. Prince Albert Rd would be made into a sort if King St. pilot situation where measures would be taken to prevent it from being used as an auto thoroughfare and to give transit priority.

The important thing would be to ensure that transit improvement measures for other regular bus routes aren't overlooked due to the focus and investment on this type of system.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

In theory? Yes. In reality? The economic dislocation caused by such a price is probably going to get us a government who would simply scrap the carbon tax. I don't get why people assume the carbon tax can't be rolled back. But that's a discussion for another thread....

I find it odd that people think we should only use sticks, when we've used carrots and sticks to promote desired outcomes on most other goals. You don't just stick on high tobacco taxes and call it a day. You usually invest in anti-smoking campaigns and offer free treatments and supports for those who want to quit. Likewise, I would suggest that helping various sectors overcome the initial capital burdens of transitioning is well within the government's bailiwick.

The government is pledging to invest $180 billion in infrastructure over the next 12 years. It would seem logical to me that some of that funding should be targeted at helping transit agencies and municipalities build the infrastructure they need to handle the higher carbon taxes that the federal government intends to impose on them.

Well, sure, the other side of the coin is that you need a competent government that will take advantage of the improved business case of climate friendly public works enabled by the higher carbon price.

The higher carbon price (plus other quasi carbon taxes like fuel taxes and regulations) is what makes the below possible:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

But I would suggest that the primary reason to support electrification isn't GHG emissions. It's the cheaper operational cost.

Without the gas taxes and carbon taxes we have, then all levels of government will face the tough choice of increased expenditure or increased emissions. With higher carbon prices, the choice is easy, they get to simultaneously make the best choice for the climate, our health and our finances. No one has to even factor in the climate into their decisions, they automatically do the right thing because everybody wants to save money.