Rapid Transit in the Halifax area

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Trains deal with that problem by dropping sand on the rails under the drive wheels, don't they? At least they did in the movies.

Not sure, but there are grade limits on train tracks, which I believe are much less than your typical east-west climb in DT Halifax. However, trains also are pulling much greater loads with less drive wheels per unit weight.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not sure, but there are grade limits on train tracks, which I believe are much less than your typical east-west climb in DT Halifax. However, trains also are pulling much greater loads with less drive wheels per unit weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_railway

Here is another option. Mind you, they would likely need to heat the rack to keep it snow and ice free.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Modern trams don't really have issues with snow that I've seen.

Here's another Bombardier one in Zurich.

Ironically, they are made by a Quebecois company... and I don't even think Montreal has any.

These trams are prevalent in cities of various sizes across Europe.


Credit: Proaktiva.ch

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Modern trams don't really have issues with snow that I've seen.

Here's another Bombardier one in Zurich.

Ironically, they are made by a Quebecois company... and I don't even think Montreal has any.

These trams are prevalent in cities of various sizes across Europe.


Credit: Proaktiva.ch

I believe Toronto is getting some of the Bombardier units:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015...treetcars.html

http://business.financialpost.com/ne...reetcar-delays

BTW, any pics of them climbing hills in a snowstorm?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_railway

Here is another option. Mind you, they would likely need to heat the rack to keep it snow and ice free.

Yes, that's brilliant! Can't get better traction than meshing gears. I've seen the Mount Washington train, it's very cool.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

No, its a tram line that reaches to areas developed in the 1970s... there are parallel lines that go outward from the centre that all reach out to these areas. It was never a "train track" per se. There are buses that fill in the gaps.

Seriously, if we built the bridges, etc... we could be doing this right now.

I looked it up, and just as I suspected it is indeed a legacy tram line originating from 1903, with 60% of it built before 1950. It was only the remaining extension of about 3.3km that was built later in the 1970s.

The situation couldn't be any more different from Halifax. That line goes from Centraal Station in the heart of the city, right to the outskirts, in the same distance as that our bus route 2 covers from Lower Water terminal as far as Dunbrack. And this is a metropolis of 1.6 million, or the population of QC and Winnipeg combined. If we had that kind of density we could support all kinds of higher order transit too.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I believe Toronto is getting some of the Bombardier units:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015...treetcars.html

http://business.financialpost.com/ne...reetcar-delays

BTW, any pics of them climbing hills in a snowstorm?

Fair enough... but the route I suggested (via Robie) doesn't have much of a hill.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I looked it up, and just as I suspected it is indeed a legacy tram line originating from 1903, with 60% of it built before 1950. It was only the remaining extension of about 3.3km that was built later in the 1970s.

The situation couldn't be any more different from Halifax. That line goes from Centraal Station in the heart of the city, right to the outskirts, in the same distance as that our bus route 2 covers from Lower Water terminal as far as Dunbrack. And this is a metropolis of 1.6 million, or the population of QC and Winnipeg combined. If we had that kind of density we could support all kinds of higher order transit too.

I'd take the 3.3km in Halifax, but I concede your point about the current population (although that figure is sort of a "greater" Amsterdam figure).

I do think there is a sense of self-defeat going on. Hell, if all those old rail lines weren't torn up, 3.3km would have been feasible by just buying the bloody tram. I wonder how far the investment in the library would go for something using the railcut.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I wonder how far the investment in the library would go for something using the railcut.

Or the $164M invested in the convention centre.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novasco...a-capital-plan

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Or the $164M invested in the convention centre.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novasco...a-capital-plan

I'm not against the library...

And you can't equate the percentage paid by the city for NC to the entire amount, but yes, transit needs to be prioritized as well. Libraries have social value, transit and trade venues do too. The second two also have the potential for income generation (definitely in usership and taxes). This is not taking into account the necessity of trade promotion (which has shown to have a multiplier effect of 40x). This has to do with both local, provincial, domestic, and international sales and investment that results from having a proper venue. All the people worried about employment should take note of this. Dusseldorf (population 500k) is known for their annual events in many sectors. I'm not talking about the "spillover" argument here... that is as questionable as tourism as a mainstay sector. I'm moreso talking about a venue for the sectors that actually drive the NS economy, like healthcare, education, etc.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I'm not against the library...

And you can't equate the percentage paid by the city for NC to the entire amount, but yes, transit needs to be prioritized as well. Libraries have social value, transit and trade venues do too. The second two also have the potential for income generation (definitely in usership and taxes). This is not taking into account the necessity of trade promotion (which has shown to have a multiplier effect of 40x). This has to do with both local, provincial, domestic, and international sales and investment that results from having a proper venue. All the people worried about employment should take note of this. Dusseldorf (population 500k) is known for their annual events in many sectors. I'm not talking about the "spillover" argument here... that is as questionable as tourism as a mainstay sector. I'm moreso talking about a venue for the sectors that actually drive the NS economy, like healthcare, education, etc.

The only reason I mentioned it, is that if you think the money put towards the library should have been put towards transit, then this is an even greater amount that would perhaps cement your position. Yes a large part of it is provincial and federal money, but this would likely be available for transit as well (whereas it probably wouldn't for a library).

The other question in my mind is whether this could have been something that was paid for by the private sector with bonuses/incentives provided by the government (i.e. tax breaks, concessions on the building, etc.). At this point it is not even clear to me where the money is going and what we are buying into. Maybe this money could have been put towards transit.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The other question in my mind is whether this could have been something that was paid for by the private sector with bonuses/incentives provided by the government (i.e. tax breaks, concessions on the building, etc.). At this point it is not even clear to me where the money is going and what we are buying into. Maybe this money could have been put towards transit.

Thankfully the city can afford a convention centre, library, and transit, just like pretty much any other city of comparable size in the developed world.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

Thankfully the city can afford a convention centre, library, and transit, just like pretty much any other city of comparable size in the developed world.

Comparable cities around the world with a population of between 300,000-400,000; How many of them have rail based transit?

[scryer]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think if Halifax were to get street cars, they'd really have to up their game on snow clearing and towing offending vehicles. Problem with towing, though, is that if traffic is backed up it may be really difficult to get a truck to the location.

Or... you could put it all underground and not have to worry about spending extra money per year (which would increase in price per year) to meticulously clear the snow and tow vehicles? Heck if you kept it completely grade-separated, you would only have to deal with snow clearance. And then that way, you only have to worry about operating costs and track maintenance. Trust me, if a streetcar is stuck for whatever reason, it is going to take a long time for it to get back running. If there's an accident or a car needs to be towed, it will take a longer time for a "rescue" bus or tow-truck to reach the area because they will have to deal with traffic themselves (especially during rush-hour).

Seeing as how I don't live in Halifax, it's very hard for me to judge what would work best for the people. But if you want speed, convenience, and reliability then vouch for a rapid transit system (of whatever technology) that is mostly, if not completely, grade separated. These grade-separated systems, when implemented effectively, become major arteries to the urban heart of a city.

I don't mean to sound gregarious but I strongly think that when you guys see how many boots The Nova Centre, The Alexander, The Maple, and The Roy Halifax all add to the streets; you may pay more attention to grade-separated rapid transit solutions. And I just want to stress that you also need to keep the future for the next 25 years in mind as well. When a city needs a rapid transit solution, people need to get from point A to point B as fast as possible. A rapid transit solution is more appealing when it can be used to cut down your commute time significantly.

Don't make the same mistakes that Winnipeg, Edmonton, and (IMO) Calgary made with their rapid transit systems. You have other Canadian cities' examples to learn from.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Comparable cities around the world with a population of between 300,000-400,000; How many of them have rail based transit?

Here's a list of cities on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ransit_systems

A lot of them are comparable in size to Halifax or smaller. For example, Canberra and Newcastle in Australia are both listed as having systems (and Gold Coast, but it is more populated and more of a resort town). Many cities in Europe that are smaller than Halifax have LRT and/or tram systems and many of those include dedicated ROW sections or even underground sections. Basically click on a bunch of the cities you've never heard of and many of them are Halifax's size or smaller. They all have LRT or light rail.

I think part of the issue in Halifax is that people think of it as a small town relative to other cities in Canada. The biggest cities in Canada used to be small so a town that was smaller than those was really small. That's not as true now though; Halifax would be a notable city in lots of different countries and it is big and busy enough to make larger infrastructure projects worthwhile. We're also trapped by looking at other North American cities that have had very poor infrastructure spending.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Comparable cities around the world with a population of between 300,000-400,000; How many of them have rail based transit?

Calgary’s population metro population was 592,000 when the C-Train opened in 1981, and Edmonton’s was 478,000 when their system opened in 1978. Both were then experiencing much faster growth than Calgary is now, but they were also much more dispersed cities, with far less dense inner cities areas and a population much harder to serve with transit.

A lot of American cities under 500,000 people have surprisingly large rail systems: Buffalo, Salt Lake City, St. Louis, Norfolk (which has a line connecting universities and downtown), Tacoma, and lots more.

Some of those cities have very large metro populations, but it’s not like HRM—the metros often include other whole independent cities, and sometimes parts of other states, that have little to no bearing on local ridership. St. Louis, for example, has nearly 3 million people in its metro area, but its metro area is more than 20,000 sq. km—more than four times the already crazy-huge HRM. Tacoma has fewer than 200,000 people, but nearly 4 million in its metro—because its metro includes Seattle. But Seattle has no effect on Tacoma’s LRT ridership. And so on.

I won’t even start on Europe, except to say I think the list of 400,000-person cities WITHOUT higher-order transit there would be shorter than the list of those with it. Of course they’re generally denser and more transit-oriented to begin with, but hey, if we want to make Halifax that kind of city … transit doesn’t just follow and serve development, it can direct it.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The only reason I mentioned it, is that if you think the money put towards the library should have been put towards transit, then this is an even greater amount that would perhaps cement your position. Yes a large part of it is provincial and federal money, but this would likely be available for transit as well (whereas it probably wouldn't for a library).

The other question in my mind is whether this could have been something that was paid for by the private sector with bonuses/incentives provided by the government (i.e. tax breaks, concessions on the building, etc.). At this point it is not even clear to me where the money is going and what we are buying into. Maybe this money could have been put towards transit.

I didn't say that... my point is that nobody blinks an eye when considering that number for a library, yet it seems even just upgrading buses (or heaven forbid some sort of rail based system) is extraordinary. I think we need both and can't "pick and choose" based on our own personal priorities.

For a small investment, all transit could have onboard credit payment options which would increase ridership and thus income for the city and Halifax Transit to expand. Where is the app as well? These things don't cost millions to implement, but they do have an real return on investment. The library is an important social investment, but transit is important too and should have equal amount or more dedicated to it.

Why would we not invest in the trade promotion / convention side? It is also income generating, local employment promoting and brings in money like transit could. Of any of these things, only one doesn't really bring income for those who don't use it. How about the library starts charging very small fees for borrowing books outside of the facility for cost recovery. See what I mean?

What is the ambiguous part? Its a lack of vision that we can't have all of these things at the same time... we are getting played against one another! Most small european cities of Halifax's size have good transit, libraries, and always a trade and/or sports venue. The "proximity" to other big places argument doesn't cut it for me considering the total population of the maritimes and the relative importance of Halifax. Sure, the private sector has a role to play... but lets not kid ourselves that they aren't chipping in as well.

The biggest issue is probably the attitudes of people working against one another and digging their heels in, plus a public administration that doesn't implement basic changes that could have sweeping effects.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Calgary’s population metro population was 592,000 when the C-Train opened in 1981, and Edmonton’s was 478,000 when their system opened in 1978. Both were then experiencing much faster growth than Calgary is now, but they were also much more dispersed cities, with far less dense inner cities areas and a population much harder to serve with transit.

A lot of American cities under 500,000 people have surprisingly large rail systems: Buffalo, Salt Lake City, St. Louis, Norfolk (which has a line connecting universities and downtown), Tacoma, and lots more.

Some of those cities have very large metro populations, but it’s not like HRM—the metros often include other whole independent cities, and sometimes parts of other states, that have little to no bearing on local ridership. St. Louis, for example, has nearly 3 million people in its metro area, but its metro area is more than 20,000 sq. km—more than four times the already crazy-huge HRM. Tacoma has fewer than 200,000 people, but nearly 4 million in its metro—because its metro includes Seattle. But Seattle has no effect on Tacoma’s LRT ridership. And so on.

I won’t even start on Europe, except to say I think the list of 400,000-person cities WITHOUT higher-order transit there would be shorter than the list of those with it. Of course they’re generally denser and more transit-oriented to begin with, but hey, if we want to make Halifax that kind of city … transit doesn’t just follow and serve development, it can direct it.

Great points.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Calgary’s population metro population was 592,000 when the C-Train opened in 1981, and Edmonton’s was 478,000 when their system opened in 1978. Both were then experiencing much faster growth than Calgary is now, but they were also much more dispersed cities, with far less dense inner cities areas and a population much harder to serve with transit.

A lot of American cities under 500,000 people have surprisingly large rail systems: Buffalo, Salt Lake City, St. Louis, Norfolk (which has a line connecting universities and downtown), Tacoma, and lots more.

Some of those cities have very large metro populations, but it’s not like HRM—the metros often include other whole independent cities, and sometimes parts of other states, that have little to no bearing on local ridership. St. Louis, for example, has nearly 3 million people in its metro area, but its metro area is more than 20,000 sq. km—more than four times the already crazy-huge HRM. Tacoma has fewer than 200,000 people, but nearly 4 million in its metro—because its metro includes Seattle. But Seattle has no effect on Tacoma’s LRT ridership. And so on.

Fair enough on most points, but those metro areas provide a hell of a tax base to draw on for funding rail projects (and probably lots of inter-urban commuters), whereas we're surrounded by thousands of square kilometres of forest.

I want to see some rail based transit in Halifax - I hope that Council will see fit to seek infrastructure funding somewhere. Fingers crossed?

Saw this the other day. Savage's priority is water upgrades. He mentions rail, but doesn't sound terribly ambitious about it and, as always, "waiting for details" (more friggin' studies?):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle28228477/

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I won’t even start on Europe, except to say I think the list of 400,000-person cities WITHOUT higher-order transit there would be shorter than the list of those with it. Of course they’re generally denser and more transit-oriented to begin with, but hey, if we want to make Halifax that kind of city … transit doesn’t just follow and serve development, it can direct it.

Hallelujah!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I didn't say that... my point is that nobody blinks an eye when considering that number for a library, yet it seems even just upgrading buses (or heaven forbid some sort of rail based system) is extraordinary. I think we need both and can't "pick and choose" based on our own personal priorities.

For a small investment, all transit could have onboard credit payment options which would increase ridership and thus income for the city and Halifax Transit to expand. Where is the app as well? These things don't cost millions to implement, but they do have an real return on investment. The library is an important social investment, but transit is important too and should have equal amount or more dedicated to it.

Why would we not invest in the trade promotion / convention side? It is also income generating, local employment promoting and brings in money like transit could. Of any of these things, only one doesn't really bring income for those who don't use it. How about the library starts charging very small fees for borrowing books outside of the facility for cost recovery. See what I mean?

What is the ambiguous part? Its a lack of vision that we can't have all of these things at the same time... we are getting played against one another! Most small european cities of Halifax's size have good transit, libraries, and always a trade and/or sports venue. The "proximity" to other big places argument doesn't cut it for me considering the total population of the maritimes and the relative importance of Halifax. Sure, the private sector has a role to play... but lets not kid ourselves that they aren't chipping in as well.

The biggest issue is probably the attitudes of people working against one another and digging their heels in, plus a public administration that doesn't implement basic changes that could have sweeping effects.

Ask the average Joe if they think a new library is a bad project, and they would not be willing to say no.
Ask the average Joe if they think a new Convention centre is a bad project, they would not think that.
The average Joe drives, and sees those buses as the problem.

What Halifax, and Canada needs is an attitude adjustment.