Rail-based Transit Discussion

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It is (almost) all about getting suburban commuters into the core. Halifax downtown is just too small and not compact enough to justify grandiose plans for subways etc.

Having said that, the rail station is a little removed from the main downtown core. It would make sense to supplement a heavy rail commuter system with a trolley loop extending from the railway station to the Cogswell area using Water Street and Barrington as a right of way. Trolleys and cars can learn to co-exist on a few low speed downtown streets.

I think you are missing the point - Rapid Transit in the downtown core encourages the use of transit and thus fewer cars in the city. If Halifax continues to grow then this is something to consider. This would likely have higher ridership numbers than the suburban commuter rail. You are only right if the city population will stagnate.

[MonctonRad]

While I am confident that HRM will see a population of 500,000 (and possibly 600,000), I don't foresee a population greater than that in the near to medium term. Also, that population will be distributed throughout the metropolitan area and a considerable portion of the people in the HRM will likely only rarely venture downtown. I still don't think you need to spend tens of millions of dollars on a sophisticated downtown transit system.

Heavy commuter rail supplemented by downtown trolleys is both feasible and relatively affordable. This is where you should start.

Over time, the trolley routes could be expanded, for example a second loop up Morris and Spring Garden to service the commercial district here as well as the universities and the hospitals.

[someone123]

Well, employment downtown (CBD) is about 20,000. On the peninsula it is about 100,000 or so.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Heavy commuter rail supplemented by downtown trolleys is both feasible and relatively affordable. This is where you should start.

Over time, the trolley routes could be expanded, for example a second loop up Morris and Spring Garden to service the commercial district here as well as the universities and the hospitals.

I can see the advantage of having commuter rail from Bedford and then have it connect to a bus terminal. However, commuter rail plus rapid transit within the city would be far better.

When you say trolley, are you talking about electric buses? The operative word in rapid transit is "rapid". Trolleys and streetcars don't provide rapid transit unless they have a Right of Way (and even then, I don't think streetcars would be very fast). However, I don't see the advantage of trolleys and streetcars over buses. The reason that subways are preferred over buses is that they quickly get from point A to point B.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

When you say trolley, are you talking about electric buses? The operative word in rapid transit is "rapid". Trolleys and streetcars don't provide rapid transit unless they have a Right of Way (and even then, I don't think streetcars would be very fast). However, I don't see the advantage of trolleys and streetcars over buses. The reason that subways are preferred over buses is that they quickly get from point A to point B.

By LRT, I mean a rail based transit system which shares the roadway with regular vehicular traffic - essentially what most North Americans consider to be a streetcar or trolley system



It might not be "rapid" in the same way as you are thinking, but it will move with regular traffic flow and is capable of moving a lot of people comfortably and quietly in a short period of time.

These sort of systems are becoming quite popular in urban Europe.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

By LRT, I mean a rail based transit system which shares the roadway with regular vehicular traffic - essentially what most North Americans consider to be a streetcar or trolley system



It might not be "rapid" in the same way as you are thinking, but it will move with regular traffic flow and is capable of moving a lot of people comfortably and quietly in a short period of time.

These sort of systems are becoming quite popular in urban Europe.

The problem with commuter rail becomes getting people from the train station or say mumford (which could be used as a key stop in and outbound) to the major employment centres such as universities, hospitals and the dockyard (not to mention downtown).

Now if you had a rail system like this from the station to just downtown, doing a loop, or maybe 2 (one to downtown and SGR and the other to the universities) then you might have a chance. The problem will be ease of service. Commuters typically will not use a system that requires more than 1 connection and if the travel time is more than what a car would do; forget it.

The only way it might work well is if you had a sizeable supply of buses (or trolleys) standing by at Mumford or the train station to take people on the two routes I mentioned. That way; as they got off the train - they'd exit to the bus/trolley station which could either by streetside by the park or behind of the terminal road - then hop on the bus/trolley and then go. The same would be true in reverse; you'd have to have trolley's waiting and have good frequency and then get them to the train stations quickly. That might work for the downtown train station because you may flow against the traffic; but for Mumford - you'd probably be in traffic most of the time. On top of which, you also have to factor in the possibility that when people get to Bedford, they'd have to transfer again - this is why commuter rail isn't really easy to do, because now you are talking 2 connections:

Get on bus at home in say Sackville, get to Mill cove (CONNECTION);
Take train to Mumford Station (CONNECTION TO BUS SERVING SMU);
Arrive at SMU.

So 2 connections - unless it works well; people will find that more complicated. This process holds true even for the fast ferry; unless the park and ride lot is huge - but even then people going to the hospitals or universities will still have to connection at the Ferry Terminal or walk up to Scotia Square.

[Canadian_Bacon]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

By LRT, I mean a rail based transit system which shares the roadway with regular vehicular traffic - essentially what most North Americans consider to be a streetcar or trolley system



It might not be "rapid" in the same way as you are thinking, but it will move with regular traffic flow and is capable of moving a lot of people comfortably and quietly in a short period of time.

These sort of systems are becoming quite popular in urban Europe.

Then it's only a matter of time before they become popular here in Canada. We seem to be adopting more of a European life then anything. European car styles, and now roundabouts etc. Are everywhere here. Whatever Europe does, we have to follow it seems.

[MalcolmTucker]

Commuters typically will not use a system that requires more than 1 connection and if the travel time is more than what a car would do; forget it.

Answer? The tram train! Would be difficult to implement without a FRA waiver, and you would likely need custom equipment. But it is certainly possible. You can run on mainlines and on the tram loop without transfers.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Answer? The tram train! Would be difficult to implement without a FRA waiver, and you would likely need custom equipment. But it is certainly possible. You can run on mainlines and on the tram loop without transfers.

This is an interesting option, especially if it could be built to maximize ROW to increase the speed. Underground sections could be built where it would be inexpensive (examples - passing through areas such as the Commons, dockyards and even some boulevards could be underground without a major cost). If this could be built as a true rapid transit option then it might be successful.

[halifaxboyns]

I posted this in the Bedford Study string; but I wanted to put it in here as well to get people thinking about what LRT can do (if designed well).

• Video Link

[MonctonRad]

Now that's what I'm talking about.

Have a handful of suburban commuter rail stations with park 'n ride lots, a heavy commuter train route to the VIA station using the rail cut and then a couple of surface LRT's with frequent trains (say every five minutes) connecting the VIA station to a downtown loop and a second loop serving SGR, the hospitals and the universities. There would only be one transfer involved (at the VIA station), it would service the entire downtown core and the university district, and is entirely doable........there is nothing grandiose about this vision at all. It's eminently practical in fact.

Once people get used to LRT's, additional routes could be added on in the future, like up Quinpool Road and down Robie Street. The future possibilities are endless!!

Let's git 'er done Halifax!!

[hfx_chris]

OR, just run the LRT system out to the suburban areas, requiring 0 transfers and negating any need to purchase and maintain two different fleets of rail vehicles.

[MonctonRad]

That would be OK, but I don't think CN would like the idea of heavy freight sharing the same ROW as LRT.

Of course, if HalTerm were relocated, this would obviate the problem

[pnightingale]

I like the idea of using the North End instead for a commuter/LRT route. I know much of the ROW is taken up by parking lots right now, but with the Cogswell Interchange (hopefully) coming down soon, you could take that opportunity to build a tunnel from Scotia Square to the dockyards where you could either continue running in a tunnel under the parking lots, or simply build a few parking structures for the dockyard employees and reclaim the ROW and run the line at grade. This would remove the need for a transfer for many people who would take the train into downtown. If you were feeling ambitious (which I am) you could dig the cut and cover tunnel where the interchange was and then take advantage of that opportunity and launch a TBM that could tunnel even further through the downtown, to the Maritime Centre, or even the VIA Station. Hybrid diesel/electric trains would remove the necessity of electrifying the whole line while still allowing then to run safely in a long tunnel. I would think that there is also less congestion on the North End line, but I could be wrong...

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by pnightingale

I like the idea of using the North End instead for a commuter/LRT route. I know much of the ROW is taken up by parking lots right now, but with the Cogswell Interchange (hopefully) coming down soon, you could take that opportunity to build a tunnel from Scotia Square to the dockyards where you could either continue running in a tunnel under the parking lots, or simply build a few parking structures for the dockyard employees and reclaim the ROW and run the line at grade. This would remove the need for a transfer for many people who would take the train into downtown. If you were feeling ambitious (which I am) you could dig the cut and cover tunnel where the interchange was and then take advantage of that opportunity and launch a TBM that could tunnel even further through the downtown, to the Maritime Centre, or even the VIA Station. Hybrid diesel/electric trains would remove the necessity of electrifying the whole line while still allowing then to run safely in a long tunnel. I would think that there is also less congestion on the North End line, but I could be wrong...

This is an idea that I like. Let's think big. Many areas could even be single track to keep the cost down (just some scheduling would be required). I also like the dockyard route for commuter rail to places like Bedford and in between. Especially if there could also be short route, high frequency LRT on the same route.

Let's start boring to create an exciting LRT route.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine )

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

That would be OK, but I don't think CN would like the idea of heavy freight sharing the same ROW as LRT.

If it was constructed to the same safety standards as heavy rail, and with proper upgrades to signaling systems, and if proper separation was kept, it would not be an issue. It is possible.
However I agree with you, CN is not always as willing to play ball as we would like.

[fenwick16]

I found this quote in the HRM's Metro Transit's 5 year plan (from October 2009 - http://www.halifax.ca/metrotransit/d...ationsPlan.pdf ):

Although beyond the scope of this plan, the consulting team envisions that, in the longer term, within 10 to 15 years, Metro Transit’s network of bus routes and ferries will need to be augmented by a network of higher order transit services, specifically, Light Rail Transit, in order to provide the needed capacity to handle higher ridership levels.

They actually show a picture of a Portland, Oregon LRT/Streetcar. I hope that instead they will consider the Portland, Oregon MAX system which sounds like it would be suited to Halifax (since both have small city blocks). This is a quote from Wikipedia (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAX_Light_Rail ):

In parts of the MAX system, particularly in central Portland and Hillsboro, MAX trains run on surface streets. Except for on the Portland Transit Mall, trains run in reserved lanes closed to other motorized vehicles. On the Transit Mall, trains operate on the same lanes as TriMet buses (although MAX trains have traffic priority). Elsewhere, MAX runs within its own exclusive right-of-way, in street medians, along side freeways, and on former freight railroad lines.

Where the tracks run along a street, intersections are generally controlled by traffic signals which give trains preemption. Where the tracks occupy a completely separate right-of-way, level crossings are protected by automatic crossing gates giving trains the right-of-way. A three-mile (4.8 km) section consists of two tunnels below Washington Park. While this section has only one station, it is 260 feet (79 m) below ground level, making it the deepest train station in North America and the second-deepest train station in the world.[11]

Because of Portland's relatively small 200-foot (61 m) downtown blocks, trains operate with only one or two cars. The MAX cars are about 90 feet (27.4 m) long, so a stopped train consisting of more than two cars would block intersections. All operating trains typically operate with two-car trains, except for certain lines during off-peak hours and other instances where only one-car trains can operate.

Here is an interesting plot of commuter patterns. Not surprisingly, New York City with its extensive subway and commuter rail system has the highest percentage of transit users (x-axis) and lowest percentage of car users (y-axis). In Oklahoma City almost everyone drives and almost no one uses public transit. Based on this CityThink survey, http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/loca...w-survey-finds, it seems as though Halifax would be in the 10% - 15% range on this graph.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpo...rtland,_Oregon )

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I posted this in the Bedford Study string; but I wanted to put it in here as well to get people thinking about what LRT can do (if designed well).

• Video Link

While there is certainly a bit of polyanna in that, it is a great video that makes a number of points much better than I could ever make them.

[halifaxboyns]

I was surfing around you tube and found this video - it's two part, but links to this website for a group called Crest.
It's late so I will look at it tomorrow; but it sounds interesting.
• Video Link
Crest website.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I was surfing around you tube and found this video - it's two part, but links to this website for a group called Crest.
It's late so I will look at it tomorrow; but it sounds interesting.
• Video Link
Crest website.

Interesting. I will definitely have to read that report.

Keith P. need not even respond because I can simply fill in his predictable response for him:
"CREST is just a bunch of pinko commie namby pamby eco-twits peddling their using crap".