The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

The main point is that the transit debate there doesn't seem to progress much, has little focus, and doesn't seem to weed out bad ideas through the application of expertise and effective public communication. We can contrast transit there with what has happened with infill planning or active transportation. I think the deficiency has more to do with the municipality and province. The province does not adequately fund transit or promote long-term planning and the municipality tends to explore transit options based on whims of suburban councillors. Rapid transit discussion has basically revolved around service to Bedford due to Peter Kelly and later Tim Outhit being very vocal about it. Nothing wrong with that--it's great that some suburban politicians want transit for their area--but that's just a tiny part of the regional picture and not necessarily the most productive geography to serve.

I think if there were something like an HRM by Design of transit or Centre Plan then the discussion might move forward. There is the Rapid Transit Strategy but it does not have a long term planning horizon and isn't funded. If it were the actual transit system of the city in 2015 it would have been an upgrade but not particularly impressive. They were saying that hopefully it would be done by 2030. Very out of whack with the amount of population growth that's been happening.

Sure, there is clearly a lack of leadership with vision for the future requirements of transit in Halifax. The city seems to get caught up in stuff that is really not in their scope, like banning plastic bags or taking on popular SJW issues or whatever the trendy thing is that may make the city look "up to date with modern times". Meanwhile, transit sucks and will continue to suck into the foreseeable future as our population is set to explode.

The latest provincial government seems to be a bit more on the ball, though it's not clear to me whether they intend to help Halifax deal with their target of doubling the population over the next few decades, by providing a clear provincial transit plan that supports Halifax's challenges with a wider idea of incorporating transit between Halifax and surrounding communities (which will be necessary with that level of growth).

This is a little off the track (pardon the pun again) of 'locals making weird claims', but that wasn't an important point anyway. Moreover, I was wondering if elevated rail might be a better alternative than digging, but it doesn't seem like it merits discussion. Realistically, a complete system would probably require all 3 depending on location, topography/geology, and ROWs. Maybe it was covered on page 827 or something... I didn't go back and read through the entire discussion.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I think part of the problem we have is people have never been to Halifax and have never used their transit system, or driven around the area, or even walked in the downtown.

I grew up on the peninsula. Lived in both the north and south end.

Basing the design solely based on population is what got Canada into the mess we have with transportation. We need to look at what would work to best serve the area and go with that.

What mess?

am not suggesting to do what is done for Toronto or Montreal with their underground systems, but I am suggesting some sort of underground system is needed. I would even be happy with the Silver Line system in Boston.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Line_(MBTA)

[/QUOTE]

Underground lrt is not needed in Halifax. The silver line in Boston was supposed to be an LRT but due to the increasing cost they had to settle for a bus instead.

People keep mentioning Edmonton but there is two things about that. Edmonton had several hundred thousand more people than Halifax does now when they started building their LRT system and is a much wealthier city in a much wealthier province. Also, they didn't use low floor trams for their first lines.

Found this video online. I agree 100% with this guy. I think about the two new lrt lines currently being built in Toronto. The Finch and Eglinton lines. Would it have not been better to use that money to extend line four? Were those two at grade lrt systms really necessary?? One with an expensive tunneled part. Would it have not been better to extend line four east and west? Line four could have been extended to cover some of the same area covered by the Eglinton line. Ottawa runs a low floor tram like a metro, they are stuck with those trams. Some one mentioned premetro, Ottawa doesn't even have the option of upgrading their trains.

• Video Link

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

I grew up on the peninsula. Lived in both the north and south end.

So, that is 1 check mark.
Did you take transit?
Did you also drive?
Did you walk a lot?

Originally Posted by Luisito

What mess?

The gridlock and other problems in the cores of most cities.

Originally Posted by Luisito

Underground lrt is not needed in Halifax. The silver line in Boston was supposed to be an LRT but due to the increasing cost they had to settle for a bus instead.

People keep mentioning Edmonton but there is two things about that. Edmonton had several hundred thousand more people than Halifax does now when they started building their LRT system and is a much wealthier city in a much wealthier province. Also, they didn't use low floor trams for their first lines.

Found this video online. I agree 100% with this guy. I think about the two new lrt lines currently being built in Toronto. The Finch and Eglinton lines. Would it have not been better to use that money to extend line four? Were those two at grade lrt systms really necessary?? One with an expensive tunneled part. Would it have not been better to extend line four east and west? Line four could have been extended to cover some of the same area covered by the Eglinton line. Ottawa runs a low floor tram like a metro, they are stuck with those trams. Some one mentioned premetro, Ottawa doesn't even have the option of upgrading their trains.

• Video Link

Great!
Let's build a subway line!

I do not agree with most of his opinions.

Lets dive a little deeper into One of the best and worst,and unique lines I like - the Green Line in Boston. It was buried because it was too busy. It had many branches. It is still a busy line. Sure if it were built out to subway size it would run better and carry more people, but that would not be possible right now, if ever. The thing is, at the time, it was the best solution, and it worked.

But if your argument is either surface LRT or full Subway? I guess Halifax will get a subway system.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, that is 1 check mark.
Did you take transit?
Did you also drive?
Did you walk a lot?

Obviously i have done those thing in Halifax. I walked and biked everywhere. Took the bus when needed. I didn't own a car when I was there but yes I have driven there. It's not like Halifax has added a million more people since i lived there.




The gridlock and other problems in the cores of most cities.

Great!
Let's build a subway line!

I do not agree with most of his opinions.

Lets dive a little deeper into One of the best and worst,and unique lines I like - the Green Line in Boston. It was buried because it was too busy. It had many branches. It is still a busy line. Sure if it were built out to subway size it would run better and carry more people, but that would not be possible right now, if ever. The thing is, at the time, it was the best solution, and it worked.
But if your argument is either surface LRT or full Subway? I guess Halifax will get a subway system.

No that has never been my argument. I do think a light metro would be better than an LRT though. I don't always agree with RM either but he is spot on about somethings.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Obviously i have done those thing in Halifax. I walked and biked everywhere. Took the bus when needed. I didn't own a car when I was there but yes I have driven there. It's not like Halifax has added a million more people since i lived there.

When I lived there, I drove when I could, but also had a bus pass because I did not have enough time in to park at work (Dockyard). I found most of the time, it was better to just hop a bus if going to downtown.

Originally Posted by Luisito

No that has never been my argument. I do think a light metro would be better than an LRT though. I don't always agree with RM either but he is spot on about somethings.

I like the hair splitting.
So, do I care what travels down the ROW? Nope.
What I care is that it does not mix with traffic an that at least 1 thru lane is kept in each original direction. To do this, downtown would either need to be elevated or underground. Due to the roughly 250 feet or 75 M height of land of the peninsula, a combination would also make sense.

[Nouvellecosse]

I agree with the RM Transit video but it's important to actually hear all the points. Around the 6:15 mark he specifically explains the pre-metro issue. His criticism pertains to LRT where a large portion of a single route is tunneled. He doesn't oppose pre-metros that just have a few km tunneled in the dense central part of the city. For instance, Eglinton's initial phase will be about 19km with 9.8km underground which is over half tunneled. So his concern is seeing a whole line compromised just to allow the shorter surface sections to avoid grade-separation rather than upgrading them. In my suggested Halifax system the underground portion would be about 3.5km out of ~16km which is less than 1/4. It would also be used by more than one route. Even if only the first phase was completed as far as the Bridge terminal, that would still mean only about 1/3 was in tunnel.

In terms of the low vs high floor, yes Edmonton's original line was high floor but low floor stock didn't exist then so I wouldn't read too much into that. Even fully street-running trams were high floor. The old TTC streetcars actually had a few stairs you had to climb to get in or out.

[Luisito]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

When I lived there, I drove when I could, but also had a bus pass because I did not have enough time in to park at work (Dockyard). I found most of the time, it was better to just hop a bus if going to downtown

.

Where did you live? Sounds like you could have benefited from the commuter train I proposed which would run by the dockyards.

I like the hair splitting.
So, do I care what travels down the ROW? Nope.
What I care is that it does not mix with traffic an that at least 1 thru lane is kept in each original direction. To do this, downtown would either need to be elevated or underground. Due to the roughly 250 feet or 75 M height of land of the peninsula, a combination would also make sense.

What travels down the ROW matters. I agree with the rest of your comment though.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Where did you live? Sounds like you could have benefited from the commuter train I proposed which would run by the dockyards.

The North End and Windsor Park. I would not have benefited from any ideas proposed here, including the ones I have suggested. But, it isn't about me and what I would benefit from. It is what would be best for the city.

Originally Posted by Luisito

What travels down the ROW matters. I agree with the rest of your comment though.

It does, but it really doesn't. So long as the ROW has been future proofed (unlike the London Underground needing curved roofs of their cars), it does not matter what goes through the tunnel. The tunnels could be designed to be large enough to fit most single level rail cars, but just use EV buses. Or they could start with a single T-1 subway. Or anything in between.What matters isn't even the surface of the tunnel or the power supply, but the dimensions of the overall loading gauge and the platform height.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The North End and Windsor Park. I would not have benefited from any ideas proposed here, including the ones I have suggested. But, it isn't about me and what I would benefit from. It is what would be best for the city.

Yeah that includes everyone, not just those directly on the peninsula I agree.

It does, but it really doesn't. So long as the ROW has been future proofed (unlike the London Underground needing curved roofs of their cars), it does not matter what goes through the tunnel. The tunnels could be designed to be large enough to fit most single level rail cars, but just use EV buses. Or they could start with a single T-1 subway. Or anything in between.What matters isn't even the surface of the tunnel or the power supply, but the dimensions of the overall loading gauge and the platform height.

ok

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Yeah that includes everyone, not just those directly on the peninsula I agree.

A transit system should be useful to the most riders as practical. Road running on steep streets isn't very practical for anyone.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Yeah that includes everyone, not just those directly on the peninsula I agree.

Keep in mind the system i proposed was specifically for that purpose. While it primarily provides a fast and convenient way for people coming from off the peninsula to transfer to it and bypass central city congestion, it also passes through several of the densest neighbourhoods on the peninsula to improve transit in those areas. A route on the rail cut would mainly just serve people coming from outside the peninsula since the rail cut mostly goes through low density areas on the edge avoiding most of the densest neighbourhoods that could use better service.

That being said, I'm all for commuter rail. It just doesn't replace an urban service. And in order for it to be high frequency you'd need to widen the rail cut to allow for three tracks which would also be extremely expensive, disruptive to freight traffic, and opposed by the noise sensitive nearby home owners. The most reasonable option would be a lower frequency service running every 20 min or so by just adding back the 2nd track. Not something many people would be using to travel to and from parts of the peninsula. It would be almost entirely for people off-peninsula, the opposite of something for everyone.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Keep in mind the system i proposed was specifically for that purpose. While it primarily provides a fast and convenient way for people coming from off the peninsula to transfer to it and bypass central city congestion, it also passes through several of the densest neighbourhoods on the peninsula to improve transit in those areas. A route on the rail cut would mainly just serve people coming from outside the peninsula since the rail cut mostly goes through low density areas on the edge avoiding most of the densest neighbourhoods that could use better service.

That being said, I'm all for commuter rail. It just doesn't replace an urban service. And in order for it to be high frequency you'd need to widen the rail cut to allow for three tracks which would also be extremely expensive, disruptive to freight traffic, and opposed by the noise sensitive nearby home owners. The most reasonable option would be a lower frequency service running every 20 min or so by just adding back the 2nd track. Not something many people would be using to travel to and from parts of the peninsula. It would be almost entirely for people off-peninsula, the opposite of something for everyone.

One thing I had wonder is whether the cut is deep enough to build a second level over the existing rail bed.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

A transit system should be useful to the most riders as practical.

Obviously.

Road running on steep streets isn't very practical for anyone.

[/QUOTE]

No one is suggesting that.

[Luisito]

[




That being said, I'm all for commuter rail. It just doesn't replace an urban service. And in order for it to be high frequency you'd need to widen the rail cut to allow for three tracks which would also be extremely expensive, disruptive to freight traffic, and opposed by the noise sensitive nearby home owners. The most reasonable option would be a lower frequency service running every 20 min or so by just adding back the 2nd track. Not something many people would be using to travel to and from parts of the peninsula. It would be almost entirely for people off-peninsula, the opposite of something for everyone.

Commuter rail can be used for urban service. Adjusting and building rail would NOT be as expensive as building tunnels. It would also not be as disruptive to people as tearing up the streets for tunnels.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

No one is suggesting that.

There was discussion on just running on existing streets.

Originally Posted by Luisito

Commuter rail can be used for urban service. Adjusting and building rail would NOT be as expensive as building tunnels. It would also not be as disruptive to people as tearing up the streets for tunnels.

The problem is a commuter rail that also is an RT takes up a lot of time on a line.

[someone123]

This picture reminded me of the conversation here. There probably was some kind of traffic issue but it might not be that unusual. Halifax has 2 harbour bridges, the newest being from 1970, with 3 lanes and 4 lanes respectively. It is growing at around 2% per year or maybe more. A few years ago the bridge commission said the 1970 bridge is falling apart and they planned to replace it with a 6 lane bridge by 2030 (timeline likely now slipped). You can see some buses mixed in there.


Source

[Luisito]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There was discussion on just running on existing streets.

Really? Not me...

The problem is a commuter rail that also is an RT takes up a lot of time on a line.

Not sure what you mean by that.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Obviously i have done those thing in Halifax. I walked and biked everywhere. Took the bus when needed. I didn't own a car when I was there but yes I have driven there. It's not like Halifax has added a million more people since i lived there.

I think it is easy to say that it is small and can't have changed that much, but it had the fastest growing downtown population in Canada in the last census. +26%. I don't mean that as some kind of cheerleader point but a lot of those areas are fundamentally changing and their needs and the services they can support are already quite different from 10, 20, 30 years ago.

You can see a kind of phase change or tipping points in urban areas too. A lot of neighbourhoods in Halifax in the 90's and 2000's were degraded and became too low density to support day-to-day shopping, broad amenities, reliable transit, etc. They went from so-so places to live to attractive places to live for broader groups of people.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Commuter rail can be used for urban service. Adjusting and building rail would NOT be as expensive as building tunnels. It would also not be as disruptive to people as tearing up the streets for tunnels.

Commuter rail wouldn't be as expensive but it wouldn't achieve nearly as much. The last commuter rail feasibility study estimated ridership of 1600-4000 per weekday depending on the version. That's less than several regular bus routes that don't require any extra infrastructure or special vehicles.

A moment ago it seemed like you agreed that providing a good service to everyone was the best goal but you're now focusing solely on cutting cost in a way that provides a useless service to most people on the peninsula (and most people off the peninsula for that matter). When these type of decisions are made they're usually based on a cost-benefit analysis, meaning the amount of benefit compared to the cost. Just worrying about which option is cheapest isn't very useful.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Commuter rail wouldn't be as expensive but it wouldn't achieve nearly as much. The last commuter rail feasibility study estimated ridership of 1600-4000 per weekday depending on the version. That's less than several regular bus routes that don't require any extra infrastructure or special vehicles.

A moment ago it seemed like you agreed that providing a good service to everyone was the best goal but you're now focusing solely on cutting cost in a way that provides a useless service to most people on the peninsula (and most people off the peninsula for that matter). When these type of decisions are made they're usually based on a cost-benefit analysis, meaning the amount of benefit compared to the cost. Just worrying about which option is cheapest isn't very useful.

No i'm not. You brought up commuter rail being expensive and i simply pointed out it would be cheaper than buidling tunnels. I have not seen that commuter rail study you mention so i can't comment on that plan but commuter rail is not useless. Commuter rail if done right can provide good service to everyone if done right. Specially electric commuter rail.