The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

It would go around the Peninsula. Similar to the old 9 Barrington bus route, 29 now I believe. Much easier than building through the city.

So, make an unnecessarily long route?

Originally Posted by Luisito

Digging a tunnel for an lrt? Seems like over the top for small city like Halifax. i only know of a few example of this and in much much bigger cities. Diggining tunnels through rock is not cheap.

Why does that matter if it is the best choice for giving the city the transit it needs?

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, make an unnecessarily long route?



Why does that matter if it is the best choice for giving the city the transit it needs?

How exactly would that be long? We're not talking the island of Montreal or Manhattan here.


If money wasn't and obstacle than sure, might as well go for a light metro not LRT.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Trudeau government to contribute $500 million to Bloor-Yonge Station



https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/trudeau-gover...million-to-bloor-yonge-station-1.6187766

Just saw more about this.


• Video Link

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Luisito

It would go around the Peninsula. Similar to the old 9 Barrington bus route, 29 now I believe. Much easier than building through the city.



Digging a tunnel for an lrt? Seems like over the top for small city like Halifax. i only know of a few example of this and in much much bigger cities. Diggining tunnels through rock is not cheap.

Keep in mind that the overall size of a city has little to do with the specifics of a particular transit route. In other words, you're looking at the wrong thing. The important factors would be the cost vs potential ridership of the different options.

While someone already raised the Edmonton comparison, you can also compare to a larger metro area like Montreal which has about 70km of underground metro for a population of ~4 million which is about 1km for every 57k people. Using that figure Halifax could support about 7km, but we'd only need half that.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

That's a lot of money wow! That station definitely needs upgrading. It gets crazy busy. $1.5 billion in total to upgrade that crossover station.

Transit constructions costs are through the roof now. Ottawa's 2.5 kilometer downtown tunnel with three stations cost around $800 million in 2012. I'm sure it would be close to $2+ Billion today.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

How exactly would that be long? We're not talking the island of Montreal or Manhattan here.


If money wasn't and obstacle than sure, might as well go for a light metro not LRT.

First, The guideway would be too wide to fit down any street that would be worth going down on the peninsula.

Second, When we look at nodes that would be good spots for a station, They are in line with each other, but the road would be too steep for most LRVs.

Third, it does not need to be underground the whole way, just where it is needed to climb the hill. Generally speaking, 4% is the most grade that you want for rail vehicles.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

While someone already raised the Edmonton comparison, you can also compare to a larger metro area like Montreal which has about 70km of underground metro for a population of ~4 million which is about 1km for every 57k people. Using that figure Halifax could support about 7km, but we'd only need half that.

There are some economies of scale and fixed costs so it won't necessarily scale down proportionally, even before you look at how useful the routes are. But the compactness in Halifax is an advantage. I often see blanket statements about how tunneling is too expensive but a 100 m or 500 m tunnel is very different from a 30 km subway line that is completely underground. 3 km of some kind of new high frequency service with a dedicated ROW like a tunnel in the right spot would be a game changer in Halifax.

If you look at the details, there are more and more areas that have the kind of density needed to support more transit or will in 10-15 years ("now" in major transit planning terms). Areas like Robie Street, Dutch Village Road, HSC, or even Lacewood. It is a big shift from what was happening in recent past decades with the city growing relatively slowly and most of that being low density.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by someone123

There are some economies of scale and fixed costs so it won't necessarily scale down proportionally, even before you look at how useful the routes are. But the compactness in Halifax is an advantage. I often see blanket statements about how tunneling is too expensive but a 100 m or 500 m tunnel is very different from a 30 km subway line that is completely underground. 3 km of some kind of new high frequency service with a dedicated ROW like a tunnel in the right spot would be a game changer in Halifax.

I will reply to this with J.OTs comment about the LRT in Ottawa.....

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Transit constructions costs are through the roof now. Ottawa's 2.5 kilometer downtown tunnel with three stations cost around $800 million in 2012. I'm sure it would be close to $2+ Billion today.

Again, is tunneling for an LRT really worth it in Halifax? Halifax could get many more kilometers building above ground and why not some elevated line. That would be the real game changer for Halifax.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7_XAMzV1LIc

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Keep in mind that the overall size of a city has little to do with the specifics of a particular transit route. In other words, you're looking at the wrong thing. The important factors would be the cost vs potential ridership of the different options.

While someone already raised the Edmonton comparison, you can also compare to a larger metro area like Montreal which has about 70km of underground metro for a population of ~4 million which is about 1km for every 57k people. Using that figure Halifax could support about 7km, but we'd only need half that.

It's the population density that matters when you want to build a tunnel.

Halifax
• Urban 348,634
• Urban density 1,463.1/km2

The GMA is approaching 4,5 million but it's irrelevant as it's the urban population and density that really matters.
When Montreal built it's Metro system, the city was already well above 1 million and had a very high density.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

It's the population density that matters when you want to build a tunnel.

That's not true at all. The main things that matter are the amount of ridership that would be using the tunnel and whether or not there are cheaper surface alternatives that could efficiently carry that traffic. Population density often affects the amount of transit traffic and surface conditions, but it's far from the only thing that affects them. And if the right conditions for a tunnel arise on a specific corridor, the overall density of the metro area is irrelevant.

So to be clear, there definitely is a relationship between a regions's density and the type of transit infrastructure required to serve it. It's just that higher density increases the likelihood of conditions that necessitate more intensive infrastructure. But density isn't the condition itself. It's important not to get the order backward.

The reason I made the Montreal comparison is to show that a city of our size can afford a proportionately smaller tunneled project if it really wants to since our per capita urban GDP is basically the same as Montreal's. It had nothing to do with whether or not it should.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

There are some economies of scale and fixed costs so it won't necessarily scale down proportionally, even before you look at how useful the routes are. But the compactness in Halifax is an advantage. I often see blanket statements about how tunneling is too expensive but a 100 m or 500 m tunnel is very different from a 30 km subway line that is completely underground. 3 km of some kind of new high frequency service with a dedicated ROW like a tunnel in the right spot would be a game changer in Halifax.

If you look at the details, there are more and more areas that have the kind of density needed to support more transit or will in 10-15 years ("now" in major transit planning terms). Areas like Robie Street, Dutch Village Road, HSC, or even Lacewood. It is a big shift from what was happening in recent past decades with the city growing relatively slowly and most of that being low density.

Also, if you were to take a map and draw a straight line between those nodes, you would end up with a much shorter line than if you were to use the existing road system. Straight line, Scotia Square to the Halifax Shopping centre is about 3km away. Driving, it is 4 km. The shortest bus route is 17 minutes and Driving the same route is almost 5km and 9 minutes.

Originally Posted by Luisito

I will reply to this with J.OTs comment about the LRT in Ottawa.....



Again, is tunneling for an LRT really worth it in Halifax? Halifax could get many more kilometers building above ground and why not some elevated line. That would be the real game changer for Halifax.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7_XAMzV1LIc

What is the goal?
Seriously, what is your goal with the RT?
If your goal is to convert bus routes to RT, then surface/elevated RT makes perfect sense.
However, if your goal is to connect high density nodes to others the shortest/quickest route, then a tunnel is better.
If money was no object, both would be good.
The tunneled route would be the most transformative to the Peninsula and to the city on a whole. The surface/elevated RT would not.

[GreaterMontréal]

That's not true at all. The main things that matter are the amount of ridership that would be using the tunnel and whether or not there are cheaper surface alternatives that could efficiently carry that traffic.

If you want to build a single tunnel you don't need density but if you build the entire system underground you absolutely need high density otherwise it's wasted money or you could end up with a worse transit system. Sometimes a tramway or a low floor LRT can do the job better, or even buses. In Montreal the new Pie-IX SRB can move 70,000/day, runs 24/7. GDP per capita is worthless to compare both cities as most of the Metro network has been built before the 90's. Montreal would not have the money, nor Toronto, if they wanted to build their network from scratch in 2022. The Blue Line extension will cost $6,4B, 6km including 5 stations. $$$ so it's about $1B/km.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

If you want to build a single tunnel you don't need density but if you build the entire system underground you absolutely need high density otherwise it's wasted money or you could end up with a worse transit system. Sometimes a tramway or a low floor LRT can do the job better, or even buses. In Montreal the new Pie-IX SRB can move 70,000/day, runs 24/7. GDP per capita is worthless to compare both cities as most of the Metro network has been built before the 90's. Montreal would not have the money, nor Toronto, if they wanted to build their network from scratch in 2022. The Blue Line extension will cost $6,4B, 6km including 5 stations. $$$ so it's about $1B/km.

If the Peninsula had a street as wide as Pie-IX, then I would agree that a tunnel is not needed. Outside of the Peninsula, there is lots of areas that above ground RT could be done.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

If you want to build a single tunnel you don't need density but if you build the entire system underground you absolutely need high density otherwise it's wasted money or you could end up with a worse transit system. Sometimes a tramway or a low floor LRT can do the job better, or even buses. In Montreal the new Pie-IX SRB can move 70,000/day, runs 24/7. GDP per capita is worthless to compare both cities as most of the Metro network has been built before the 90's. Montreal would not have the money, nor Toronto, if they wanted to build their network from scratch in 2022. The Blue Line extension will cost $6,4B, 6km including 5 stations. $$$ so it's about $1B/km.

Perhaps you missed the earlier discussion, but what a few of us suggested for Hfx was exactly that. An LRT/tramway system with a short tunneled section. Not an entirely underground system. The tunneled section would simply be needed because there are places where no reasonable surface corridor exists to dedicate space to transit so the combination of congestion, crosswalks, traffic lights, etc. would make it too slow to attract significantly more ridership than buses.

But yes, most major projects need help from other levels of government and/or financing staggered over longer time frames so I'm not seeing anything different here. I wasn't suggesting that the city could simply shell out the entire cost at once on its own.

[WhipperSnapper]

Transit will continue to suck in Canada if we continue to look for profit or minimize loses. This is the political argument that handcuffs planning experts. (like lovers of tall buildings use housing shortages to argue a tall proposal)

[hipster duck]

^Things like short cut and cover tunnel sections or sections that are mined out (like Ottawa's downtown LRT tunnel), rather than bored, can be pretty "cheap", especially if there are no underground stations. As I understand it, tunnels start to get very pricey when you have to launch a TBM and then dig deep, ventilated stations.

What are the bedrock conditions under downtown Halifax?

Can one of the downtown north-south streets and one of the east-west streets leading towards Dalhousie be sacrificed exclusively for transit and pedestrians/cyclists?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Can one of the downtown north-south streets and one of the east-west streets leading towards Dalhousie be sacrificed exclusively for transit and pedestrians/cyclists?

I think that's probably feasible from a purely technical standpoint. Deliveries may pose a challenge but that could be handled with a King St. type arrangement. I'd say the bigger challenge would be the politics of taking that much street space away from normal car access. I don't think most people are using SGR and (downtown) Barrington as long-distance cross town car routes and Hollis, Lr Water, Brunswick and Sackville provide alternatives. But facts like that don't seem to matter to a lot of people. There's huge controversy even with things like protected bike lanes taking away some parking spaces so banning all through traffic would be a whole other level. That being said, the surface corridor would still be slow due to intersections and crossings so there would be a technical benefit in the underground segment which combined with the politics could be the clincher.

What a lot of such debates comes down to for me is that we need to move away from the goal of spending as little we can get away with spending and move toward the goal of building the best city we can afford to build. That doesn't mean not caring about cost since money spent one place isn't available in another (opportunity cost). It just means accepting that building the best possible city is expensive so we should be thinking carefully about the best options rather than the cheapest or easiest. That can mean building something expensive, not because we're forced to but because it offers great advantages in terms of quality of life and sustainability (both economic and ecological).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Trudeau government to contribute $500 million to Bloor-Yonge Station



https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/trudeau-gover...million-to-bloor-yonge-station-1.6187766

All that work and spending and no platform screen doors or climate controlled platforms.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Perhaps you missed the earlier discussion, but what a few of us suggested for Hfx was exactly that. An LRT/tramway system with a short tunneled section. Not an entirely underground system. The tunneled section would simply be needed because there are places where no reasonable surface corridor exists to dedicate space to transit so the combination of congestion, crosswalks, traffic lights, etc. would make it too slow to attract significantly more ridership than buses.

Everyone keeps saying a short tunnel. Are we talking half the line would be tunneled, 1/4 of it? Where would this tunnel be exactly??
Where off the peninsula has better terrain for a street car like people on here are asking for?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

It's the population density that matters when you want to build a tunnel.

Halifax
• Urban 348,634
• Urban density 1,463.1/km2

The GMA is approaching 4,5 million but it's irrelevant as it's the urban population and density that really matters.
When Montreal built it's Metro system, the city was already well above 1 million and had a very high density.

I do think these density stats are pretty skewed for Halifax, though.

For example, Statistics Canada shows Halifax's downtown density at 6,200 per sq. km—the sixth-highest in the country, after Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary.

But it also has the next closest ring of neighbourhoods—the downtown-adjacent “urban fringe”—at a dramatic density drop-off of only 1,340. That’s lower than the equivalent neighbourhoods in Regina and Windsor or even Drummondville. No offense to those cities, but that's ridiculous. A quick scan at Census Mapper will show that densities in the urban fringe areas, and the inner suburbs beyond, well into the thousands per square kilometre.

I think part of the issue is that the city's harbour creates a huge swath of empty area which is counted against the density statistics, and once you get farther out, there are large gaps between some suburbs where there is preserved forested areas (even close to the urban core) or large industrial/military uses. The actual effective density of the neighbourhoods is much, much, much higher than the 1,463 cited above.

Having said that: I'm not sure tunnelling is necessarily a great use of money in Halifax, at least outside of the most congested part of the city centre. It's sort of irrelevant anyway as it would likely require provincial funding, and that's very, very unlikely under the current government.