Rail-based Transit Discussion

[David1gray]

CTV's got some info on this too, there is video in with the link too.

http://atlantic.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...ce=twitterfeed

[Waye Mason]

Why pick one or the other? Why not start with the railway cut that is there, and also reserve a corridor down the old railway cut through Richmond Terminal?

I agree we should by commuter rail built to standards that let it run on rail with freight, but low floor and able to possibly run as street cars (like Austin). But I don't think it is either or for the route. I think it is both.

Do the easy, cheaper one right away, have a 15-25 year plan to expand that all the way to Fall River or Enfield, and meanwhile, build the Richmond line, and expand it to Dartmouth/Eastern Passage.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The report from the Transportation Committee.

Grumph... ridership projections of 750 people? No details on capital costs for CN track, no revenue projections. Grumph.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Why pick one or the other? Why not start with the railway cut that is there, and also reserve a corridor down the old railway cut through Richmond Terminal?

I agree we should by commuter rail built to standards that let it run on rail with freight, but low floor and able to possibly run as street cars (like Austin). But I don't think it is either or for the route. I think it is both.

Do the easy, cheaper one right away, have a 15-25 year plan to expand that all the way to Fall River or Enfield, and meanwhile, build the Richmond line, and expand it to Dartmouth/Eastern Passage.

To do street level low floor that is compatible with FRA limits, I don't think has been done. Hard to make a tram train in North America if you are going to be sharing ROW with freight.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

To do street level low floor that is compatible with FRA limits, I don't think has been done. Hard to make a tram train in North America if you are going to be sharing ROW with freight.

I concede that I have not seen it done. The two that have low floor (Austin, New Jersey) don't let the freight run at the same time. So Austin goes street to freight ROW, but no freight allowed until after the passenger rail stops running.

So does that mean Budd cars or something else commuter heavy is the only option? Maybe so. But you'ed think others would want to mix that.

[halifaxboyns]

The difficulty is safety regulations. Calgary's LRT (which runs in 7th Avenue in the core) has to be separated from the CP right of way when it flows down to the southern parts of Calgary. Now granted, the separation isn't much - but it's enough that the rail cut would be out let alone sharing the line out to Bedford. I agree with Waye and Someone123 - the report is lacking details in a lot of key areas, TOD being at least one. For me, where the report lacks information is how they expect people to get from the CN station to downtown...are there going to be buses waiting there?

From an infrastructure perspective (and taking the CN's willingness out of the equation for now) using the dayliners is a waste. Yes, they are cheap - but they take a while to get up to speed. If the city is going to be serious about this, it really needs to look at
a couple of things. The first is: do they want this to be a success? If the answer is yes, then invest in modern cars, which have much better speed and acceleration.

The second is where the people are the people who are taking the train going: what are the key employment locations on the Peninsula? Then knowing this - the next step is how do you get the people there?

The answer is obviously the hospitals/schools, the dockyards and the office core. So how would you get people from the stations they've chosen? If it's by bus then then in order to get people out of their cars, the connections have to be easy and the total travel time has to be less than by car.

The harbour front ROW (as I will call it) that Keith speaks about is interesting - but runs into the same problem as the rail cut it's close to DT, but not quite there. But is much closer than the Via Station. But what I'm not hearing is where could the 'station' along this line be? I'm assuming in the parking lot near the dockyard, but would it be a single platform? Would it be multiple?

My frustration with this whole rail project is that there isn't enough information to really make an informed decision - someon123 is absolutely right when he points out it's essentially the same report as came out last time, just with a new title and date.

[MalcolmTucker]

Could run something like the Toronto Air Rail Link trains easily but not on streets. To get a FRA compliant tram train would be a custom job - you'd pay a pretty penny for the privilege of being first, plus the tram tracks would have to support way more than the weight of normal LRT.

Would be much cheaper to do two separate systems, with train meeting built into the schedules.

Toronto Air Link Train

source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_ARL.jpg

[Keith P.]

What is FRA?

[MalcolmTucker]

Federal Railroad Administration I believe.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The harbour front ROW (as I will call it) that Keith speaks about is interesting - but runs into the same problem as the rail cut it's close to DT, but not quite there. But is much closer than the Via Station. But what I'm not hearing is where could the 'station' along this line be? I'm assuming in the parking lot near the dockyard, but would it be a single platform? Would it be multiple?

My frustration with this whole rail project is that there isn't enough information to really make an informed decision - someon123 is absolutely right when he points out it's essentially the same report as came out last time, just with a new title and date.

I imagine this: Take the Cogswell down, include in the new street grid a ROW that extends from the Morse Tea building to the old ROW at Cornwallis. As an aside - Maybe work a deal with DND so that you can have the ROW all the way to along there, and sell the air rights as a part of a development of the package from Cornwallis to the bridge on ramp, making those sites even more valuable.

Then you could have a ROW from the heart of downtown, basically meters from the current Scotia Square terminal, north past DND to the Bedford highway. I'd like to see a transit terminal bring together rail, metroX and buses in a real terminal, not bus shelters. I like that it would be mere metres from the ferry.

The ROW could be BRT, instead of LRT. I'm okay with that. The main thing that makes rail exciting is IF we can afford it and cut a deal with CN. Rail that does not get stuck in traffic will be attractive to users, buses stuck on the Bedford highway will not. It really comes down to whether CN can be brought into this - bought off, I guess.

I've said it before on this and other messageboards... I think the rail can and will work, but it needs to be multi-year, phased approach, that is built into all our planning, and at the end of the day, it might cost closer to $120-150 million, but phased over 10 years, I don't think that is too high a cost. Per capita, if HRM was spending the same on transit capital projects as Toronto, we would be spending well more than $100 million a year, where we now spend a tenth of that.

My rail car is this, the Metrolink, New Jersey LINE Stadler.

http://www.stadlerrail.com/en/vehicles/gtw/

In the specs, it says they are "Ready to fulfill FRA alternate compliance". We need a real rail expert to tell us what that means. Does that mean that these are low floor FRA compliant and could run, as Budd Cars would do, on tracks with freight? What is "alternate"?

[Waye Mason]

"In June 2009, at the request of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee established the Engineering Task Force (ETF). The ETF is comprised of government, railroads, suppliers, and labor organizations and their consultants. The ETF was tasked with recommending a process for assessing alternative Tier I passenger rail equipment, i.e., passenger equipment that is operated at speeds up to 125 mph on the general railroad system. The final product of the ETF is a document outlining criteria and procedures for demonstrating crashworthiness performance of passenger rail equipment built to alternative design standards and proposed for operation in the US. The results provide a means of assessing whether an alternative design compares to designs compliant with the FRA's Tier I crashworthiness requirements. This paper focuses on the criteria and procedures developed for scenario-based requirements. The principle collision scenario describes the minimum train-level crashworthiness performance required in a train-to-train collision of an alternatively designed passenger train with a conventional locomotive-led passenger train. For cab car-led and MU locomotive-led operations, the impact speed is prescribed at 20 mph. For locomotive led operations, the impact speed is prescribed at 25 mph. Criteria for evaluating this scenario include intrusion limits for the passengers and engineer, and occupant protection measures. Other scenario-based requirements discussed in this paper include colliding equipment override, connected equipment override, and truck attachment."

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/saf...%209-16-10.pdf

Further reading this morning shows the FRA seems to be resistant to allowing modern DMUs or EMUs on tracks with freight, because in part they don't like having passengers sitting in the lead car, instead of having a locomotive in the front to impact, I suppose, the oncoming locomotive.

I'm going to do something other than surf the net...

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I imagine this: Take the Cogswell down, include in the new street grid a ROW that extends from the Morse Tea building to the old ROW at Cornwallis. As an aside - Maybe work a deal with DND so that you can have the ROW all the way to along there, and sell the air rights as a part of a development of the package from Cornwallis to the bridge on ramp, making those sites even more valuable.

Then you could have a ROW from the heart of downtown, basically meters from the current Scotia Square terminal, north past DND to the Bedford highway. I'd like to see a transit terminal bring together rail, metroX and buses in a real terminal, not bus shelters. I like that it would be mere metres from the ferry.

The ROW could be BRT, instead of LRT. I'm okay with that. The main thing that makes rail exciting is IF we can afford it and cut a deal with CN. Rail that does not get stuck in traffic will be attractive to users, buses stuck on the Bedford highway will not. It really comes down to whether CN can be brought into this - bought off, I guess.

I've said it before on this and other messageboards... I think the rail can and will work, but it needs to be multi-year, phased approach, that is built into all our planning, and at the end of the day, it might cost closer to $120-150 million, but phased over 10 years, I don't think that is too high a cost. Per capita, if HRM was spending the same on transit capital projects as Toronto, we would be spending well more than $100 million a year, where we now spend a tenth of that.

My rail car is this, the Metrolink, New Jersey LINE Stadler.

http://www.stadlerrail.com/en/vehicles/gtw/

In the specs, it says they are "Ready to fulfill FRA alternate compliance". We need a real rail expert to tell us what that means. Does that mean that these are low floor FRA compliant and could run, as Budd Cars would do, on tracks with freight? What is "alternate"?

I like the idea of a line along the old one on the waterfront - but I do have some concerns.

Is there enough room for a platform on the Cogswell lands? Let's face it, you'd need to have more than 1 platform in preparation of expansion if the service is successful. Plus the ROW along the waterfront is only wide enough for 1 train car to go by. So you may have to purchase additional land for a lay-by location along it, otherwise if an outbound train is moving along the line no incoming train could occur.

One option which could occur as you move into the downtown is to then do a tunnel to get the train further through downtown to offer a better capture of the downtown commuters? But that would be expensive.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I like the idea of a line along the old one on the waterfront - but I do have some concerns.

Is there enough room for a platform on the Cogswell lands? Let's face it, you'd need to have more than 1 platform in preparation of expansion if the service is successful. Plus the ROW along the waterfront is only wide enough for 1 train car to go by. So you may have to purchase additional land for a lay-by location along it, otherwise if an outbound train is moving along the line no incoming train could occur.

One option which could occur as you move into the downtown is to then do a tunnel to get the train further through downtown to offer a better capture of the downtown commuters? But that would be expensive.

I think you could fit it on Cogswell, no problem. I'd like to see a public square between the Marriot, Delta and Morris Tea buildings, with the train/bus station on the north side. You could but a building with an 80-100 foot frontage there, put the trains below grade, buses at grade? I dunno, I think it could be done. As for one lane, well, probably you'ed re-align the ROW anyway, it could go hard against the wall where the rail was, or it could go in the middle of the road (Lord Provost Drive) like this:



Either way, the space is there, and I bet DND would be compliant/supportive if you promised to put a station right at the main gate.

[halifaxboyns]

It's an idea worth thinking about.
Using the HRM GIS map and the concept you came up with (Waye/KeithP), I mapped out your route based on the HRM suggestion, your routing and then my suggested stops in downtown.

I've noted some problem points which need consideration and I'm suggesting tunnel through DT (I think it's really the only way to avoid problems).

I came up with this map to illustrate the design. I've added the downtown stops - I think if this is going to work, stopping it at Cogswell isn't going to cut it. You need to add a downtown section.

So I've added 4 stops: Scotia Square, Waterfront (ferry terminal connection), Sackville and Maritime Centre. I also extended it to the south end at the existing via station - I hate to see that station so under used.

[someone123]

Seattle has a combined bus and light rail tunnel running under its downtown core: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtow...Transit_Tunnel

The problem with getting too elaborate with the commuter rail system is that it is a fundamentally crippled service that will always have limitations. You could build the fanciest downtown terminals and tunnels ever and it would still be slow and awkward. Paying to significantly improve and extend the freight rail system so we can have somewhat better commuter rail just doesn't make sense. By the time you go much beyond the $30M budget there are much better transportation project opportunities, like transitways for peninsula bottlenecks or inner-city streetcar type services.

There really needs to be more information and more concrete consideration of other options.

Here's an example of a modern service that cost only $8.5M for rail upgrades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouv...0_Olympic_Line

The more I think about it the more it feels like Halifax transportation planning is stuck in 1982. None of this has even appeared in any of the reports. All we hear about is stupid Budd cars and made up modal share numbers that only capture about 60% of the reason for building this thing. It's like if HRM council were non-ironically debating the merits of ordering new typewriters for City Hall because they took 30 years to make up their mind.

[halifaxboyns]

I can see what you are saying, along with Waye/Keith's comments.

I'm all for any attempt to make transit in the city better. Personally, I think the city should be focusing on a multi-pronged approach. The construction of the City's BRT system shows existing corridors that could support an LRT type system. The Portland Hills, downtown service is always busy. That should be one of the first lines.

I like the idea of combining things like LRT with high speed ferries and a streetcar so that people have multiple options to get somewhere.

For example: If a stadium ends up at Shannon Park, I could see building a high speed ferry but also constructing a streetcar from the Bridge Terminal into SP and back as a loop, in addition to bus service from elsewhere. 3 options - you pick which is best. Something tells me no matter what you would pick; you'd do well.

[someone123]

Yeah, I agree. Each type of service is different and in a city with complicated geography the best solution is a mix. The Dartmouth ferry makes sense for example if you live in downtown Dartmouth and work in downtown Halifax or vice versa, or if you are a tourist and just want a fun ride. It serves a dual purpose and is definitely worthwhile, but it does not work for everybody even in the service areas.

Fundamentally the biggest problem in Halifax is just that the investment and direction aren't there, period. A fast ferry to Bedford or commuter rail would both be better than the 80, which is a joke. And the most densely populated areas like the peninsula and Clayton Park don't seem to have any significant transit improvements on the horizon.

Halifax's quality of life is going to decline unless transportation projects are implemented to reduce commute times and encourage good development. That's the cost of council's delays and lack of action. And it is a serious cost. Some people like to claim that it's an issue of a minute or two here or there but in reality we are talking about millions of hours of lost time, tons of emissions, etc.

[halifaxboyns]

Totally agree. I don't know what it is; but there seems to be a reluctance to use transportation improvements as a way to achieve both planning objectives (densify the regional core) and improvements in the tax base (by encouraging higher density along the improved transit lines, to boost and improve the tax base).

There are 4 key areas in the regional core that with a couple hundred million $ over a few years, could redensify and provide a really great transportation system on the peninsula and in Dartmouth.

They are:
Shannon Park;
Agricola Corridor (from the Commons all the way to Young Street and I include the Hydrostone area in this);
Quinpool Road;
Highfield Park; and
The Young/Robie area (near where the recent high density application across from the Superstore went in).

If one Streetcar line was built from the Hydrostone area, down Agricola and into downtown as a loop and then another doing the same in Dartmouth looping out to Shannon and then another one looping out to Highfield Park (and Burnside) - you could easily redensify those 5 areas in 20 years.

I keep repeating it; but the PBS documentary on Portland I watched really showed me that the redevelopment they did in the Pearl District was more than worth it. They spent $60 million on a streetcar and got back $3 billion in private investment. That's huge - if HRM spent $300 million (I'm assuming that would be 'today's cost') we could easily see that level of investment back. It all comes down to vision and alas - it's not there.

[Waye Mason]

I have heard pundits and politicians seriously say that running a ferry or rail to Bedford will LEAD to sprawl. Not cause density. No concept at all of how a corridor like that can drive development, that is is for the walking/short bus ride distance to the train/ferry, not for people driving in from Enfield.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I have heard pundits and politicians seriously say that running a ferry or rail to Bedford will LEAD to sprawl. Not cause density. No concept at all of how a corridor like that can drive development, that is is for the walking/short bus ride distance to the train/ferry, not for people driving in from Enfield.

Oh I've heard the same thing. I'm sure that most of us realize it's the complete opposite - the more you expand highways and create ring roads, the more you create sprawl and that improved transportation such as LRT, high speed ferries, streetcars, regional rail or even BRT can create higher density through TOD.

There is just a lot of backwards thinking when it comes to transportation sometimes...