Halifax Transit

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Apparently it's actually an art installation near a bus stop, but not actually a bus stop.

This, on the other hand...

What a stipid idea, building playgrounds right next to the bus stop. How many kids will play there and get injured or killed?

[curnhalio]

Yeah, just imagine a swing set at Spring Garden & Dresden Row. Or at the Bridge Terminal where you could easily kick someone in the teeth. There is a reason swing sets are confined to playgrounds and backyards.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I'd like to suggest we rethink how bus stops function in HRM and take an idea from Montreal in this photo. This is an actual bus stop in Montreal:

I was by there this summer while heading to Schwartz's! Those swings were very busy, all were in use! I thought it was an excellent idea to pass time whilst waiting for the bus.

[halifaxboyns]

I think it's one thing to install an art installation like in Montreal (look at the area - there is a lot of space, it's almost the size of a playground in terms of size) - it's another thing to use the other image of a swing in the bus shelter.

Obviously, if anything were to be installed (along this line) it would need space! So putting it on Spring Garden Road - not gonna happen! But at something like the Bridge Terminal or in the park next to it? Why not?

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Obviously, if anything were to be installed (along this line) it would need space! So putting it on Spring Garden Road - not gonna happen! But at something like the Bridge Terminal or in the park next to it? Why not?

I suppose installing a swing set in that park would be nice, but then you've just built a standard playground swing set.

Obviously the best way to make the wait for the bus "fun" is to shorten the wait altogether.

[Spire]

Metro Transit has opened a new public consultation website, in connection with the new five-year service plan. There's a discussion forum, surveys, and several videos discussing concepts like ridership vs. coverage, system design, etc. I haven't had a chance to look at it in-depth yet, but it seems quite comprehensive - I'm impressed.

There's been a lot of great ideas discussed here, and this seems like the perfect opportunity for us to get them noticed.

http://shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/transit-service-plan

[rkannegi]

I can't wait to see higher frequency bus service across other parts of the city outside of Gottingen/Robie 7, the Portland Corridor and the Metro Link system (rush hour), let alone an extended bus and HOV lane system on, ideally, all major roads throughout the city, where room can be made for them (or at least have right of way set aside for them in the future if not needed at present). I know that ... ... Lacewood and Mumford Terminals need to be replaced before more improved service is brought in (and eventually, Scotia Square Terminal too).

The newly improved service on the 7 (15-minute frequency), as I had expected, is a major benefit for the areas it serves , provided that the intended trip coincides with the route (Stadacona section of CFB Halifax, Downtown, east and west ends of Spring Garden Road, the South End, the central portion of Dalhousie, the vast majority of Robie Street and the NSCC in the North End). Today, (leaving Stadacona at 3:45 PM) I was able to get from Stadacona to the downtown CIBC via the 7, get a bank draft from CIBC (to pay off an overhaul on my truck's engine), then board the 185 at Cogswell Tower (for an extra 50 cents on the transfer), getting off the 185 at to Windmill Road at Wright Avenue, and walk to Fairley & Stevens Ford and pick up my truck from Fairley & Stevens' service shop before 4:40 PM.

Yeah! Now I don't have to drive to Clayton Park as much to do my banking. (Under the old service schedule for route 7, even in rush hour - via the Windsor Street Exchange, it was faster for me to drive back and forth between Stadacona and Clayton Park than it was to wait for the bus or walk to the downtown CIBC from Stadacona).

Now, if only HRM would stop allowing new buildings to go up in the way of potential bus/HOV lane rights of way along the major roads! (i.e. HRM should have a "push back" plan in place for some corridors so that the necessary rights of way are set aside for bus and HOV lanes when the buildings on adjoining properties reach the end of their service life. If HRM, say, had this in place for Young Street between Robie and Agricola, the bottleneck there would have been gone by the year 2012 and we would have a bus/HOV lane system in place within the existing wider road widths of Young Street to the east and the west of the Robie-Agricola section of Young Street. Unfortunately, now, in order for a Young Street bus/HOV corridor to be made, HRM would have to demolish Mother's Pizza, the relatively new apartments just west of Mother's Pizza, part of Lion's Head Tavern's parking lot and another potential building that may go up on the southeast corner of Young and Robie).

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by rkannegi

Now, if only HRM would stop allowing new buildings to go up in the way of potential bus/HOV lane rights of way along the major roads! (i.e. HRM should have a "push back" plan in place for some corridors so that the necessary rights of way are set aside for bus and HOV lanes when the buildings on adjoining properties reach the end of their service life. If HRM, say, had this in place for Young Street between Robie and Agricola, the bottleneck there would have been gone by the year 2012 and we would have a bus/HOV lane system in place within the existing wider road widths of Young Street to the east and the west of the Robie-Agricola section of Young Street. Unfortunately, now, in order for a Young Street bus/HOV corridor to be made, HRM would have to demolish Mother's Pizza, the relatively new apartments just west of Mother's Pizza, part of Lion's Head Tavern's parking lot and another potential building that may go up on the southeast corner of Young and Robie).

The problem here is that there is no map or designated routes where road widening is planned - this is a flaw of the Regional Plan. In Calgary, we have designated routes where we know widening is needed. So in the Land Use Bylaw, when redevelopment happens we must require additional bylawed setbacks so that the building is pushed back and then we can come along and expropriate the land for widening. The catch here is that we have way more redevelopment, so I don't know how well it would work in HRM - but that's one option so that if some redevelopment happens at least you could get some parcels and then do expropriation outside of development applications for the rest.

[halifaxboyns]

Haligonia is posting pictures of some of the new flyer buses that will replace all of the old bus fleet and I believe some of the noisier Nova Buses (number in the 990's to 1000 something).

The interior looks pretty good...

[Keith P.]

Glad that they are getting rid of those awful Nova LFS abominations. A couple have caught on fire in recent years and they have always been awful. Those are the ones whose "wave to open" rear exit doors never worked and because of their design had about 30% less passenger capacity than the gool old GM designs they replaced. This idiocy over low-floor buses really needs to be rethought.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Haligonia is posting pictures of some of the new flyer buses that will replace all of the old bus fleet and I believe some of the noisier Nova Buses (number in the 990's to 1000 something).

The interior looks pretty good...

The old Novas are staying for now. There are atleast 30 Classics still in the fleet that have to go first. I think the few 930's that were left have finally bit the dust, but 948, 949 and 951 are still running, not to mention most of the 950's-980's save for 953, 963, 974, 976 and 984. Novas 986-1000 are still around except for 988 and 993. They are 14 years old and parts can still be obtained for them. Expect to see them around for a few years yet.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

It sounds like it is best to cut back on the ferries and use part of the savings to have an all-night cross harbour bus route (such as route # 1).

I'd be happy even if there was just one route running every hour from 1-6am following the full #1 route and then the #10 route in Dartmouth plus down the circ to Penhorn and from Mumford up to Lacewood. At least then they could get a person close enough to the nearest terminal so they could take a cab the rest of the way rather than having to pay cab fare all the way across town.

Went to the public consultation session tonight and they had some interesting discussion and there was even another ssp member there. But they didn't actually get to a few of the topics I had wanted to bring up coming into the session. But there's supposed to be another session later in the year.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Went to the public consultation session tonight and they had some interesting discussion and there was even another ssp member there. But they didn't actually get to a few of the topics I had wanted to bring up coming into the session. But there's supposed to be another session later in the year.

This one just wanted to touch on theory. I was there too but I'm sure you were referring to another ssp'er . They just wanted to get a gentle nudge in the right direction. The 2nd stage sessions slated for the winter will delve far deeper I'm sure.

[Nouvellecosse]

Which time were you there?

[curnhalio]

I was there for the whole thing. David was the staff member leading our table.

[rkannegi]

I went to the public consultation session at the Holiday Inn last night on Metro Transit. If you're all wondering, since I currently live close to the MacDonald Bridge, I took the 52 across to avoid parking issues at the Sportsplex (which was full due to the Mooseheads game).

I was happy with the format of the session, group discussions for each of the four sections of the session. For my table (I sat in David's group), one of the biggest points I suggested was aiming for 15-minute (or better) frequency on as many transit routes as feasibly possible, where, as demand drops of from peak demand, the affected routes could progress to smaller vehicles until they reach the smallest feasible size of bus, and only if 15-minute frequency can't be maintained with the smallest feasible buses due to excessively low ridership, then consider allowing reduced service frequency. Mumford Terminal also came up in our discussion - some of us said that it needs to be replaced just like what's going to happen to Lacewood. I also briefly mentioned a suggestion for 24 hour transit (where feasible).

Another big suggestion I made was implementing reversing lane systems on existing roads like Quinpool Road and Bedford Highway with peak-direction HOV lane included. For road corridors that can't be widened in the short term, but could be expanded in the long term, I suggested implementing bus or HOV lanes within the existing road width until widening happens in the long term. Meanwhile, for corridors that can be widened within the near future, I suggested that those roads be widened to allow for bus or HOV lanes. There was very little, if any disagreement with all of this, just that the main caveat is that will take some HRM time to gather resources and funding to implement measures like this.

I briefly mentioned the need for adding HOV lanes on roads like Portland Street to Gloria McClusky as I had the chance when she briefly visited our table.

Generally, as many of you have probably gathered over the last several months, I generally prefer to have bus and HOV lanes added as new lanes instead of taking away existing lanes. However, for corridors that are constricted by sensitive development or development that's too intense to be demolished (such as Ocean Towers near Barrington Street), or that are too costly to expand in the near future, I have little to no problem to the idea of implementing bus lanes or HOV lanes within the existing width of the road if it's at least 3-4 lanes of total width.

Overall, there was strong consensus across the whole room on implementing enhanced Transit Priority Measures (TPM's), which includes HOV-only or bus-only lanes or bus-only/HOV-only roads.

Also, given that the MacDonald Bridge virtually forms a linch pin for almost all of Metro Transit, especially the the 52 route that I like nicknaming the "B52" due to its very high importance as a cross-town bus route, while also noting the positive effect the Bridge Terminal replacement had on most of Metro Transit's routes, I openly suggested sacrificing the right-hand lane in the peak direction on the MacDonald Bridge for HOVs that have at least 2 people in the vehicle, IMMEDIATELY.

Speaking of which, today, ironically on Friday the 13th, whilst also noting all of the Metro Transit buses that were stuck in traffic and packed full of commuters (especially those that had to pass through the line ups that were all headed for the MacDonald Bridge), the traffic this afternoon wasn't just bad, IT WAS AAAAWWWWFUUUUUUUUUUL!!!!

So, I think it's high time to forcibly make a peak-hour HOV lane on the existing 3-lane MacDonald Bridge.

Currently, I'm not going to call for that on the Mackay Bridge for normal peak hours given the nearly bi-directional nature of its normal peak hour daily commuter traffic (equal volume in both directions) that prevents the implementation of reversing lanes on the existing bridge during normal peak hours. This means that, in my opinion, HOV lanes cannot happen on the Mackay Bridge during normal peak hours until it's twinned. However, reversible lanes (with HOV lane) would be useful on the existing Mackay Bridge for major or epic events that occur outside of the normal peak hours of traffic, since, in those situations, there is almost always excess off-peak road capacity in the less-dominant direction of the Mackay Bridge during these after-hours major events (including Mooseheads games).

I define epic events as events that attract (or affect) a population that is greater than 20-25% of the population of an affected Census Metropolitan area. The Christmas Parade of Lights in Halifax is an example of that (at least 170,000 people attended last years parade, while many more were tied up in traffic trying to make it in). During these events, I also suggested making the MacDonald bridge entirely one-way in the dominant direction during the inbound and outbound surges with one HOV lane included. While I did not mention the downside to this at last night's forum, the downside to that idea is that all vehicular traffic in the less-dominant direction, including Metro Transit, would need to divert to the Mackay Bridge, which is not very easy to do when an affected bus route can only start diverting when it reaches the intersection of North and Gottingen (or Brunswick).

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

[Hali87]

I really do hope that HRM develops some HOV lanes; given the difficulty in widening roads it seems like a good solution.

Originally Posted by rkannegi

Currently, I'm not going to call for that on the Mackay Bridge for normal peak hours given the nearly bi-directional nature of its normal peak hour daily commuter traffic (equal volume in both directions) that prevents the implementation of reversing lanes on the existing bridge during normal peak hours. This means that, in my opinion, HOV lanes cannot happen on the Mackay Bridge during normal peak hours until it's twinned.

HOV lanes don't have to be reversible though. To me it would make just as much sense to just have one lane in each direction on the MacKay be marked as HOV as it would to fiddle around with reversing lanes.

That being said, does this even fall under Metro Transit's authority? My gut instinct says no...

[rkannegi]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I really do hope that HRM develops some HOV lanes; given the difficulty in widening roads it seems like a good solution.



HOV lanes don't have to be reversible though. To me it would make just as much sense to just have one lane in each direction on the Mackay be marked as HOV as it would to fiddle around with reversing lanes.

That being said, does this even fall under Metro Transit's authority? My gut instinct says no...

The bridges fall under the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission (both HRM and the Province of Nova Scotia appoint Commission members).

My reasoning behind the reversing lane idea for the Mackay during major after-hours events is to maintain 2 general lanes in the dominant direction between the split/merge from the Barrington Street ramps and the toll plaza.

HDBC Executive:

https://www.hdbc.ca/executiveboard.asp

HOV lanes, when done right, could act as a "traffic meter" for traffic entering and exiting the Peninsula to help mitigate overload of the Peninsula's road system and parking spaces.

It may make sense, during a major event, for HRM and the Province to kick in a "throttle" by forcing HOV lanes on one existing inbound lane on each Peninsula entry without reversing any additional lanes to the inbound direction in the last hour before the event (all entries, not just the Bridges), in order to mitigate overload of the Peninsula's internal road system, while, at the end of such a major event, having additional existing lanes reversed to the outbound direction in order to allow for accelerated egress of all of the additional vehicles from the Peninsula (HOV or not). If such "throttling" is ever done, extra buses, along with designated parking lots just outside of the Peninsula will be needed to facilitate switchover from SOV to HOV or bus, in order for this to work. Also, an inland bypass along Future Highways 113 and 107 (and the intervening section of Highway 102) will need to be built, along with getting a full freeway-freeway systems junction built in Bedford to allow non-Peninsula traffic full circumnavigation of the Bedford Basin without having to leave the regional freeway system.

[Keith P.]

You would not be able to sell the concept of reversing lanes on either bridge for HOV use. The car traffic is so bad at peak hours that drivers would revolt and use them as ordinary lanes. Ticket them as much as you want, but all it takes is a few to do it and everyone would. Plus the public outcry would be enormous.

The reality is that we need a third bridge. The house of cards that is Halifax traffic means that it only takes one fairly minor incident like yesterday's to throw the entire city into gridlock at rush hour.

[Hali87]

If the point is to reduce the overall number of vehicles, wouldn't it make sense to NOT have reversing lanes, and just have one HOV lane, and one non-HOV lane, in each direction? This would encourage carpooling, which would reduce the total number of vehicles using the bridge, so theoretically you shouldn't need the extra lane.

I just worry that adding a lot of reversing lanes complicates things and drives up the cost, and makes it less realistic that such an initiative would actually happen. Lanes that are reversible and HOV only a few times per year seem particularly unfeasible.