Rail-based Transit Discussion

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Not if you are a truck or taxi driver - expect hundreds of thousands of job losses.

And I can already hear people out there saying "good riddance", but there could be a lot of economic dislocation, and not everyone can be retrained to learn computer coding............

The elephant in the room that I chose not to discuss is the potential phasing out of 'manual' jobs for people. I personally don't agree with it - as you alluded to, there are many people who want to do this kind of work. Not everybody wants to be a computer coder, doctor (no offense... ), lawyer, etc. etc., and I think we are doing a disservice to society in general by choking off jobs for truck drivers, taxi drivers, cashiers, etc... 'We' are removing options for people, which is the opposite of where we should be going...

JMHO.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Another problem with centrally networked and controlled autonomous vehicles is that the system becomes increasingly fragile and prone to disruption in case of catastrophe.

The next war will likely be a digital war, or at least will start out as a digital war. If all traffic flow is autonomous, and there is no option for the operator in the car to take over in case of emergency, it would be quite easy for the Chinese to insert a virus into the system at the beginning of conflict in order to completely disrupt the system and create mass chaos. The same thing could happen to out banking and financial system, and certain critical infrastructure could be specifically targeted (power plants and water treatment plants for example).

Another risk would be a gamma ray burst or a solar coronal mass ejection. The latter can send a stream of charged particles from the sun so powerful that it can overwhelm the Earth's magnetosphere. This has happened in the past. In the 1860s (I believe), there was a coronal mass ejection so powerful that brilliant aurora blanketed the sky as far south as the equator, and telegraph lines began arcing, and small fires were reported from the telegraph handsets. If such an event had occurred in the modern world, transformers would be fried and computer systems destroyed, A coronal mass ejection could have devastating consequences for a centrally controlled traffic system.

There are many reason why personal autonomy should continue for people using motorized vehicles. If we give up all control to the "system", very bad things could happen...........

Unfortunately, with our infrastructure I think we are already past the point of not being screwed by such an event.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

If you consider this problematic then consider how modern cars operate. There's very little direct human control. When you move the steering wheel or perform some other action as the driver of a modern car, you are simply providing some inputs to the computer system of the vehicle, which then performs indirectly related actions much more complicated than a human could perform. This approach has proven to be much more reliable and efficient than purely direct mechanical controls.

Actually, I hate to disagree, but this is not the case. Almost all current vehicles still have direct mechanical links to vital systems, such as steering and braking. Many have electronic assist but the controls are still linked directly to the systems being controlled. Typically, the computer controls the amount of assist, based on vehicle speed, input force/torque etc, but if your vehicle's electrical system fries while you are driving on the highway, you should still be able to steer to the side of the road and stop. Granted this is likely to change in the future, though, much to the chagrin of driving enthusiasts who appreciate steering and brake feedback as part of the driving experience.

You are correct, though, in that some systems are electronically controlled without direct mechanical link, most notably throttle control. This was done for a number of reasons, mainly layout and emissions. It is debatable, however, whether it would be considered more reliable and efficient, but it certainly wins on the complexity and cost (as in more expensive) side of things.

Many other systems are now tied into direct computer control (i.e. electronic controls for things like HVAC, power accessories, infotainment/navi, fuel delivery, etc. etc.), however.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The elephant in the room that I chose not to discuss is the potential phasing out of 'manual' jobs for people. I personally don't agree with it - as you alluded to, there are many people who want to do this kind of work. Not everybody wants to be a computer coder, doctor (no offense... ), lawyer, etc. etc., and I think we are doing a disservice to society in general by choking off jobs for truck drivers, taxi drivers, cashiers, etc... 'We' are removing options for people, which is the opposite of where we should be going...

JMHO.

I've long been against the idea that we should be doing things is a less efficient way for the sake of "making work". Adding efficiency and productivity in the sense that we can achieve more productive outputs with fewer hours of human labour inputs has been the goal of technology since the beginning. There's no reason this should change out of the fear that society can one day achieve most of its goals without everyone having to supply manual time and labour.

I think most people realize intuitively that we shouldn't be worried about preserving "jobs" or "work." If someone showed us a more innovative way to get your household chores done with significantly less work, it's unlikely that we'd object and try to preserve these jobs. What we want isn't the job, it's the money. In other words, we need to change the way our economy works so that most of us aren't getting our income on the basis of trading our time and labour for money since those things aren't going to be the main things that power society forever.

That's why discussions about things like UBI are so important. Having people waste large portions of their lives performing tasks that are no longer necessary and thus stunting both quality of life and overall productivity is completely counter to the purpose of advancing our society.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think you're ignoring the human element here. This is just my thinking, but I believe it's easier for people to understand when somebody makes a mistake while driving and causes a collision. After all, "we're only human" and most people probably have made similar mistakes while driving but had gotten away with it. Massive errors in judgement, like driving while intoxicated, excessive speed causing an accident, etc., are likewise judged harshly and people are penalized for their errors. We as a society feel that they are being punished for their deeds and tend to forgive and forget over the long run. However, I think "we" have a different standard when a "computer" makes a mistake that results in injury or death. I believe such cases would be judged much more harshly, and especially in litigious USA, it could result in potentially crippling lawsuits to the company(ies) responsible for the vehicle/software/system.

I don't think I'm ignoring the human element. In fact the intention of my remarks was to argue that humans shouldn't approach this in that way that they often do. I wouldn't have a reason to argue that if I didn't realize that such a response was common. Sometimes the acceptance of natural human tendencies is necessary, but often it isn't. It really depends on the situation.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think you misread the intention of mentioning children, animals, and pedestrians causing cars to stop. It was in response to your previous statement: "Ironically if all human drivers were to be off the road by tomorrow, automated operation would suddenly become far more feasible. If all the vehicles on the road were able to communicate as part of some master network it would solve so many problems. You wouldn't need traffic lights or stop signs or minimum following distances since all the traffic would be controlled by the same system."

I'm not what I could be missing there. If you have cars connected to the same network, you don't need as large of minimum stopping distances because if an obstacle suddenly appears in front of one car in a line of vehicles, the system tells them all to apply brakes at the same time so there's no need for additional reaction time between each vehicle and the only extra space that's needed is to allow for the difference between brake performance. In terms of traffic lights and stop signs, I should clarify that you'd still need those for anything outside of the network, but the automated vehicles within the network itself wouldn't need to interact with them. If there was a pedestrian that wanted to cross, the automated system would cause the traffic to stop, but otherwise the system would be able to calculate the few cm needed between cars crossing through the intersection and time them precisely enough that they wouldn't need to slow down significantly. They would simply increase or decrease their speed by an imperceptible amount several blocks back.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

A couple of points:
- Having all cars act in a predictable manner can also have the effect of human cyclists being lulled into a false sense of security, until something goes wrong. But, then, statistically I'm sure it would be better, though we won't have any real-world data on that until the system is actually in use. Any problems encountered in early versions would be counter measured in later versions, and if the problem is extreme enough would result in recalls that would retrofit older/existing models with the newer hardware/software necessary.

I'm not sure I see the issue with the "false sense of security". Let's say you hear a news report: "The mugging victim was extremely shaken up and was apparently caught completely unaware that there was any possible danger. Witnesses say that the crime rate in the neighbourhood is so low that no one really considers the possibility of such events"

So then the obvious solution would be increased crime rates to ensure that locals don't become too complacent and are better prepared to defend against more frequently occurring incidents. Or... accept that ultra low crime rates that make people feel secure are a good thing even though there's no such thing as perfection.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

- I think there will have to be some sophistication built into the software/hardware to be able to be aware of and predict the actions of cyclists to prevent the right turn in front of them scenario. Presumably that will be considered - if not at first then at least (as industry tends to do) after a number of fatalities occur.

I don't think that would require as much sophistication as it sounds. For instance,any system that's capable of checking to the sides before performing a lane change should be capable of it. And any system should be capable of that before being allowed on the road.

All in all, I think the important thing to remember with all of this is that there are upsides and downsides to everything and it's important to look equally at what's being gained as at what's being lost. Looking predominantly at what's being lost or at what could potentially be a problem isn't any better imo than look disproportionately at what's being gained. They're equal extremes in opposite directions and both are problematic.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I've long been against the idea that we should be doing things is a less efficient way for the sake of "making work". Adding efficiency and productivity in the sense that we can achieve more productive outputs with fewer hours of human labour inputs has been the goal of technology since the beginning. There's no reason this should change out of the fear that society can one day achieve most of its goals without everyone having to supply manual time and labour.

I think most people realize intuitively that we shouldn't be worried about preserving "jobs" or "work." If someone showed us a more innovative way to get your household chores done with significantly less work, it's unlikely that we'd object and try to preserve these jobs. What we want isn't the job, it's the money. In other words, we need to change the way our economy works so that most of us aren't getting our income on the basis of trading our time and labour for money since those things aren't going to be the main things that power society forever.

That's why discussions about things like UBI are so important. Having people waste large portions of their lives performing tasks that are no longer necessary and thus stunting both quality of life and overall productivity is completely counter to the purpose of advancing our society.

We will have to fundamentally disagree on this topic then.

I'm not talking about 'making work' per se, but I think that simply eliminating core jobs because we can, or more succinctly because it's more profitable for companies to do it this way does result in some people being non-employable. Especially those who are already in settled situations (i.e. home and kids to pay for) and aren't in positions to go back to school and learn new careers that have no guarantee of being phased out by the next tech revolution.

I'm old enough to remember hearing how a computerized society would result in less work, shorter work days, and more leisure time, but have observed companies downsizing, running lean because they no longer have to pay wages, benefits, etc. to as many people. Many people I know are working longer hours for the same pay, but maybe your experience is different than that. So for the time being, I will have to be skeptical of your assertion that it is likely for us "to change the way our economy works so that most of us aren't getting our income on the basis of trading our time and labour for money since those things aren't going to be the main things that power society forever". Been there, heard it 35 years ago, haven't seen it happen yet...

The whole 'quality of life' thing is often used to judge by assuming that people working 'below' them are living horrible meaningless lives. Not being understood is that less stress and complexity in their work environment can actually lead to a more enjoyable life overall, perhaps with less monetary compensation but with the benefit of less negative mental load to follow them home at night.

So, yeah, I disagree with your opinion very much.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't think I'm ignoring the human element. In fact the intention of my remarks was to argue that humans shouldn't approach this in that way that they often do. I wouldn't have a reason to argue that if I didn't realize that such a response was common. Sometimes the acceptance of natural human tendencies is necessary, but often it isn't. It really depends on the situation.

Thousands of years of humans, yet we still continually fall into the same habits and tendencies. So, unless you intend to do some genetic engineering, I will be a skeptic.

I'm not what I could be missing there. If you have cars connected to the same network, you don't need as large of minimum stopping distances because if an obstacle suddenly appears in front of one car in a line of vehicles, the system tells them all to apply brakes at the same time so there's no need for additional reaction time between each vehicle and the only extra space that's needed is to allow for the difference between brake performance. In terms of traffic lights and stop signs, I should clarify that you'd still need those for anything outside of the network, but the automated vehicles within the network itself wouldn't need to interact with them. If there was a pedestrian that wanted to cross, the automated system would cause the traffic to stop, but otherwise the system would be able to calculate the few cm needed between cars crossing through the intersection and time them precisely enough that they wouldn't need to slow down significantly. They would simply increase or decrease their speed by an imperceptible amount several blocks back.

Not saying that there are not some gains to be made, but simply saying your utopian idea still has to deal with the realities of the world around us. All your vehicles can be braking at the same time, but they will still be braking, and stopping at unexpected times. But then, as someone123 points out, the idea of the 'mother network' is just one possibility. They may all just be completely autonomous vehicles reacting to their environment around them, thus making this a moot point.

I'm not sure I see the issue with the "false sense of security". Let's say you hear a news report: "The mugging victim was extremely shaken up and was apparently caught completely unaware that there was any possible danger. Witnesses say that the crime rate in the neighbourhood is so low that no one really considers the possibility of such events"

So then the obvious solution would be increased crime rates to ensure that locals don't become too complacent and are better prepared to defend against more frequently occurring incidents. Or... accept that ultra low crime rates that make people feel secure are a good thing even though there's no such thing as perfection.

Not talking about crime, just the idea that automated vehicles 'always react this way', and then they don't. These are machines controlled by computers, they occasionally fail... or have you never experienced a system lockup on your PC (which have been around forever... one would think that issue would have been solved by now, no?).

I don't think that would require as much sophistication as it sounds. For instance,any system that's capable of checking to the sides before performing a lane change should be capable of it. And any system should be capable of that before being allowed on the road.

Blind spot detection tells you what is there, but doesn't have the ability to judge its speed, nor calculate the relative speeds of the two vehicles, nor judge the condition of the entrance or potential obstructions in the turn to know whether it will be safe to turn in front of the cyclist. Y'know... complex.

All in all, I think the important thing to remember with all of this is that there are upsides and downsides to everything and it's important to look equally at what's being gained as at what's being lost. Looking predominantly at what's being lost or at what could potentially be a problem isn't any better imo than look disproportionately at what's being gained. They're equal extremes in opposite directions and both are problematic.

The potential benefits are obvious and easy for even those with the most basic understanding to grasp and thus not necessary to mention (presumably, if you are arguing 'for' it, then you must understand the potential benefits). The problem is that many of us become so focused on those potential benefits that we tend to look at the new shiny thing through the proverbial rose coloured glasses, without considering the negative aspects. It's important to look at it with balanced perspective... and as I've mentioned, I'm not against the technology, but I don't think we are there yet, nor do I think there is any benefit to rushing headlong into it until we understand the implications well.

[someone123]

I posted about this in the Canada section but one thing I think of is how suburban-focused the transit debates in Halifax tend to be. People usually think of transit improvements in terms of getting riders from outer suburban areas like Bedford into downtown. But in reality, a single line will only serve a small portion of the suburbs of the city and a much smaller share of suburbanites will take transit.

It would be better to focus on the urban core, to build higher frequency, faster, and more permanent infrastructure. People in the urban core will use the services more, there is a huge potential for infill (which is more efficient tax-wise than suburban sprawl), and it has the side-benefit of improving transit for suburbanites. If it were easy to get around the peninsula on transit, there wouldn't be a need for nearly as many suburban bus routes. They'd connect to a transfer point and service would be vastly better.

One component of this that's never discussed is a downtown transit tunnel. This could be for something like LRT but it could also be for buses. A large portion of it could run through the Cogswell lands. Imagine if the buses ran under Barrington and Spring Garden Road, and the stations connected up with the pedway system. A useful starter portion of this would merely connect up the Gottingen bus corridor with Scotia Square. Buses would enter the tunnel at Gottingen and Cogswell and would reach their terminus without interacting with mixed traffic beyond that point. I think the lack of discussion of this idea is the biggest oversight in the Cogswell redevelopment plans.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

We will have to fundamentally disagree on this topic then.

I'm not talking about 'making work' per se, but I think that simply eliminating core jobs because we can, or more succinctly because it's more profitable for companies to do it this way does result in some people being non-employable. Especially those who are already in settled situations (i.e. home and kids to pay for) and aren't in positions to go back to school and learn new careers that have no guarantee of being phased out by the next tech revolution.

I'm old enough to remember hearing how a computerized society would result in less work, shorter work days, and more leisure time, but have observed companies downsizing, running lean because they no longer have to pay wages, benefits, etc. to as many people. Many people I know are working longer hours for the same pay, but maybe your experience is different than that. So for the time being, I will have to be skeptical of your assertion that it is likely for us "to change the way our economy works so that most of us aren't getting our income on the basis of trading our time and labour for money since those things aren't going to be the main things that power society forever". Been there, heard it 35 years ago, haven't seen it happen yet...

The whole 'quality of life' thing is often used to judge by assuming that people working 'below' them are living horrible meaningless lives. Not being understood is that less stress and complexity in their work environment can actually lead to a more enjoyable life overall, perhaps with less monetary compensation but with the benefit of less negative mental load to follow them home at night.

So, yeah, I disagree with your opinion very much.

So if I'm to understand correctly, the issue you're raising is that since we haven't yet made the changes I'm advocating for, that the changes are therefore impossible and we shouldn't bother thinking about the possibility? All the issues you're talking about are problems with the economic system and the way that money and resources are distributed, ie in order to have income/"earn a living" most people need to sell their time and labour in exchange for money and don't consider potential innovations such as UBI. Of course improvements in technology including automation have not changed the way the proceeds of technology are distributed and of course companies have simply pocketed the profits gained by improvements in productivity because that's the way the economic system is designed. But you have not made any argument as to why we should keep things that way.

I would strongly caution against embracing reactions such as "something must continue to be because that's how it's always been" or "it's impossible because it's never happened". That's simply not a rational way to judge the merits of new ideas. There's no surer way to stifle progress and find one's self on the wrong side of history. Before we had universal heathcare in Canada we had gone for a whole century without it. Before slavery was abolished in the US, the country lived for centuries with it. Any major societal change will be preceded by a long period - often the whole of prior history - with the previous conditions were the norm.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thousands of years of humans, yet we still continually fall into the same habits and tendencies. So, unless you intend to do some genetic engineering, I will be a skeptic.

There are countless things that are human nature that we don't simply accept unopposed. For instance, if something being human nature meant we had to accept it, then many of our current laws wouldn't exist.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not saying that there are not some gains to be made, but simply saying your utopian idea still has to deal with the realities of the world around us. All your vehicles can be braking at the same time, but they will still be braking, and stopping at unexpected times. But then, as someone123 points out, the idea of the 'mother network' is just one possibility. They may all just be completely autonomous vehicles reacting to their environment around them, thus making this a moot point.

I realize that there's no requirement that autonomous cars be networked, I was simply remarking that if they were certain things could be achieved. And that is very much true regardless of whether or not it would be a net benefit which I haven't commented on.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not talking about crime, just the idea that automated vehicles 'always react this way', and then they don't. These are machines controlled by computers, they occasionally fail... or have you never experienced a system lockup on your PC (which have been around forever... one would think that issue would have been solved by now, no?)..

I realize that we weren't talking about crime; I was just using that as an analogy. The point that I was making is that reducing something bad to levels so low that people come to expect it not to be present is still a good thing even if people aren't as well prepared for the bad thing in the rare cases in which it occurs.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Blind spot detection tells you what is there, but doesn't have the ability to judge its speed, nor calculate the relative speeds of the two vehicles, nor judge the condition of the entrance or potential obstructions in the turn to know whether it will be safe to turn in front of the cyclist. Y'know... complex.

An automated car needs more than simple blind spot warning that comes with most new cars on the market today. It would have to be able to see not only whether another vehicle is in the blind-spot currently, but also if another vehicle is approaching in a way that the lane change would cause cause conflict. Whether or not one consider's that complex, that's something automated systems are already capable of.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The potential benefits are obvious and easy for even those with the most basic understanding to grasp and thus not necessary to mention (presumably, if you are arguing 'for' it, then you must understand the potential benefits). The problem is that many of us become so focused on those potential benefits that we tend to look at the new shiny thing through the proverbial rose coloured glasses, without considering the negative aspects. It's important to look at it with balanced perspective... and as I've mentioned, I'm not against the technology, but I don't think we are there yet, nor do I think there is any benefit to rushing headlong into it until we understand the implications well.

Alright, fair enough. Sometimes if one makes predominantly "devil's advocate" type comments it can be hard to tell whether they're basically attempting to write it off or if they're just trying to discuss important issues. It sounds like we both see the upsides and downsides and I was focusing on the upsides out of fear that others were focusing only on the downsides and you were focusing on the downsides out of concern that others were focusing entirely on the upsides.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

So if I'm to understand correctly, the issue you're raising is that since we haven't yet made the changes I'm advocating for, that the changes are therefore impossible and we shouldn't bother thinking about the possibility? All the issues you're talking about are problems with the economic system and the way that money and resources are distributed, ie in order to have income/"earn a living" most people need to sell their time and labour in exchange for money and don't consider potential innovations such as UBI. Of course improvements in technology including automation have not changed the way the proceeds of technology are distributed and of course companies have simply pocketed the profits gained by improvements in productivity because that's the way the economic system is designed. But you have not made any argument as to why we should keep things that way.

I would strongly caution against embracing reactions such as "something must continue to be because that's how it's always been" or "it's impossible because it's never happened". That's simply not a rational way to judge the merits of new ideas. There's no surer way to stifle progress and find one's self on the wrong side of history. Before we had universal heathcare in Canada we had gone for a whole century without it. Before slavery was abolished in the US, the country lived for centuries with it. Any major societal change will be preceded by a long period - often the whole of prior history - with the previous conditions were the norm.

No, that's not actually what I'm saying, but rather than continue this let's get back to the thread topic.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

There are countless things that are human nature that we don't simply accept unopposed. For instance, if something being human nature meant we had to accept it, then many of our current laws wouldn't exist.

I realize that there's no requirement that autonomous cars be networked, I was simply remarking that if they were certain things could be achieved. And that is very much true regardless of whether or not it would be a net benefit which I haven't commented on.


I realize that we weren't talking about crime; I was just using that as an analogy. The point that I was making is that reducing something bad to levels so low that people come to expect it not to be present is still a good thing even if people aren't as well prepared for the bad thing in the rare cases in which it occurs.


An automated car needs more than simple blind spot warning that comes with most new cars on the market today. It would have to be able to see not only whether another vehicle is in the blind-spot currently, but also if another vehicle is approaching in a way that the lane change would cause cause conflict. Whether or not one consider's that complex, that's something automated systems are already capable of.


Alright, fair enough. Sometimes if one makes predominantly "devil's advocate" type comments it can be hard to tell whether they're basically attempting to write it off or if they're just trying to discuss important issues. It sounds like we both see the upsides and downsides and I was focusing on the upsides out of fear that others were focusing only on the downsides and you were focusing on the downsides out of concern that others were focusing entirely on the upsides.

I understand your points and mostly agree. Actually we probably agree on more points than it would seem, I think.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I posted about this in the Canada section but one thing I think of is how suburban-focused the transit debates in Halifax tend to be. People usually think of transit improvements in terms of getting riders from outer suburban areas like Bedford into downtown. But in reality, a single line will only serve a small portion of the suburbs of the city and a much smaller share of suburbanites will take transit.

It would be better to focus on the urban core, to build higher frequency, faster, and more permanent infrastructure. People in the urban core will use the services more, there is a huge potential for infill (which is more efficient tax-wise than suburban sprawl), and it has the side-benefit of improving transit for suburbanites. If it were easy to get around the peninsula on transit, there wouldn't be a need for nearly as many suburban bus routes. They'd connect to a transfer point and service would be vastly better.

One component of this that's never discussed is a downtown transit tunnel. This could be for something like LRT but it could also be for buses. A large portion of it could run through the Cogswell lands. Imagine if the buses ran under Barrington and Spring Garden Road, and the stations connected up with the pedway system. A useful starter portion of this would merely connect up the Gottingen bus corridor with Scotia Square. Buses would enter the tunnel at Gottingen and Cogswell and would reach their terminus without interacting with mixed traffic beyond that point. I think the lack of discussion of this idea is the biggest oversight in the Cogswell redevelopment plans.

I did read your post in the Canada section, along with Nouvellecosse's well-thought-out proposal, and I agree.

The tunnel idea reminds me that we don't seem to take on big infrastructure projects like we used to (like the south end rail cut and Ocean Terminals for example). An idea like that, if carried out properly, could be a game changer for getting around in Halifax.

Edit: In thinking about this post a little more, I have to modify my answer a little. I agree that more widespread urban transit should be a goal, and would be beneficial for all the reasons you mentioned.

But... I think to ignore the suburban aspect would be a mistake. One of the goals of efficient transit should be to get people out of their cars when going into the city. Traffic jams waste time, create unnecessary pollution and waste fuel, contributing to atmospheric carbon, etc. Bringing people into the downtown with their cars also creates the problem of where to park them, etc.

If you look at the Google maps traffic patterns at rush hour, you can easily see the worst jams in the morning are at the 102 coming into Halifax, the Bedford Highway, and Magazine Hill. Those are tons of people that the previously proposed transit system potentially would have removed from their cars by means of a faster, cheaper, more efficient system. Of course you will use the argument that it encourages development in the suburbs, but the city can control this by reducing the amount of new buildings going in there... in the meantime the only other method of reducing this wasteful situation is to build more roads, which doesn't really solve the problem. But you have to realize that the suburbs are not going to go away... people will live there as long as they exist, so there needs to be a better option than hopping in your car and waiting in traffic...

As far as only serving a small portion of the suburbs, I disagree somewhat - if 'park and ride' locations are created at the terminals, you can draw in more people for which driving to the transit station will still be a better option than driving downtown, and thus you are still reducing the amount of cars coming into the downtown, and potentially eliminating traffic jams...

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is extremely interesting to me to note that while govts, and especially the People's Republic of HRM govt, bend over backwards to acknowledge and address every perceived wrong, slight, or unequal treatment directed at various minority, "oppressed", and special interest groups, they are also throwing tons of money and resources at the cycling lobby zealots, which is about as extreme an ableist bunch as you can find. Nobody with disabilities or other physical challenges is going to use the cycling infrastructure as those who do seem to perceive themselves as the second coming of Lance Armstrong. Imagine the outrage if HRM announced a plan to add high-speed lanes to streets for motorcyclists or those running wannabe rally cars on the street.

I also note with interest that the councillor for the southern part of the peninsula has recently jammed through a plan making THE STREET HIS HOUSE IS LOCATED ON, Vernon St., a "local bikeway", which is code for a no-through-traffic street for cars. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

Malarkey. Balderdash. Nonsense. I went to a Commons Masterplan thing-a-ma-bob a year ago and someone had the audacity to suggest that, I, a wheelchair user, MUST consider myself a pedestrian.

I can't walk more than 10-20 feet without having to sit down. WE NEED MORE BENCHES!

As for Vernon, it's been used as a shortcut since I was a kid, at least.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

Malarkey. Balderdash. Nonsense. I went to a Commons Masterplan thing-a-ma-bob a year ago and someone had the audacity to suggest that, I, a wheelchair user, MUST consider myself a pedestrian.

I can't walk more than 10-20 feet without having to sit down. WE NEED MORE BENCHES!

As for Vernon, it's been used as a shortcut since I was a kid, at least.

I'm confused. How are you going to ride a bicycle in that case? The cyclists will demand that you get out of their way. They are not an accepting bunch.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

I posted about this in the Canada section but one thing I think of is how suburban-focused the transit debates in Halifax tend to be. People usually think of transit improvements in terms of getting riders from outer suburban areas like Bedford into downtown. But in reality, a single line will only serve a small portion of the suburbs of the city and a much smaller share of suburbanites will take transit.

It would be better to focus on the urban core, to build higher frequency, faster, and more permanent infrastructure. People in the urban core will use the services more, there is a huge potential for infill (which is more efficient tax-wise than suburban sprawl), and it has the side-benefit of improving transit for suburbanites. If it were easy to get around the peninsula on transit, there wouldn't be a need for nearly as many suburban bus routes. They'd connect to a transfer point and service would be vastly better.

One component of this that's never discussed is a downtown transit tunnel. This could be for something like LRT but it could also be for buses. A large portion of it could run through the Cogswell lands. Imagine if the buses ran under Barrington and Spring Garden Road, and the stations connected up with the pedway system. A useful starter portion of this would merely connect up the Gottingen bus corridor with Scotia Square. Buses would enter the tunnel at Gottingen and Cogswell and would reach their terminus without interacting with mixed traffic beyond that point. I think the lack of discussion of this idea is the biggest oversight in the Cogswell redevelopment plans.

Part of the problem is simply, where do you put it? Most roads are not wide enough for dedicated LRT lanes.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Part of the problem is simply, where do you put it? Most roads are not wide enough for dedicated LRT lanes.

Either remove vehicle lanes, put it underground, or put it above ground.

There is rarely "room" for transit in busy urban areas. The land is all put to some kind of use. Often it's used for vehicle lanes. Most of the transit routes around the world were added to developed areas after they were built; in many cases the areas were much busier and harder to redevelop than Halifax would be.

One important observation is that dedicated bus lanes or rail lines support a higher density of service. They are a net win even if they displace other lower density forms of traffic. They may even be a net win for cars if it means fewer buses weaving in and out of mixed traffic.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

But... I think to ignore the suburban aspect would be a mistake. One of the goals of efficient transit should be to get people out of their cars when going into the city. Traffic jams waste time, create unnecessary pollution and waste fuel, contributing to atmospheric carbon, etc. Bringing people into the downtown with their cars also creates the problem of where to park them, etc.

If you look at the Google maps traffic patterns at rush hour, you can easily see the worst jams in the morning are at the 102 coming into Halifax, the Bedford Highway, and Magazine Hill. Those are tons of people that the previously proposed transit system potentially would have removed from their cars by means of a faster, cheaper, more efficient system. Of course you will use the argument that it encourages development in the suburbs, but the city can control this by reducing the amount of new buildings going in there... in the meantime the only other method of reducing this wasteful situation is to build more roads, which doesn't really solve the problem. But you have to realize that the suburbs are not going to go away... people will live there as long as they exist, so there needs to be a better option than hopping in your car and waiting in traffic...

As far as only serving a small portion of the suburbs, I disagree somewhat - if 'park and ride' locations are created at the terminals, you can draw in more people for which driving to the transit station will still be a better option than driving downtown, and thus you are still reducing the amount of cars coming into the downtown, and potentially eliminating traffic jams...

I actually would agree with that. I think the situation is somewhat analogous to the downtown relief line issue in Toronto in that the infrastructure would be physically in the central areas but it would make it more convenient for people coming into town from outer areas.

While it's important to provide good transit service to people in central areas, people in inner nabes already create less car traffic since they walk and bike more which makes sense since it's geographically pretty small. Most of the traffic volume is from commuters coming in from outside, while much of the congestion is from either the choke points coming onto the peninsula or from the confined street layout. Having a way for people to come in and out of town fast bypassing congestion and frequent stops would attract a lot of riders and reduce surface street traffic volumes significantly.

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I'm confused. How are you going to ride a bicycle in that case? The cyclists will demand that you get out of their way. They are not an accepting bunch.

Not accepting of cars, perhaps.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by someone123

Either remove vehicle lanes, put it underground, or put it above ground.

There is rarely "room" for transit in busy urban areas. The land is all put to some kind of use. Often it's used for vehicle lanes. Most of the transit routes around the world were added to developed areas after they were built; in many cases the areas were much busier and harder to redevelop than Halifax would be.

One important observation is that dedicated bus lanes or rail lines support a higher density of service. They are a net win even if they displace other lower density forms of traffic. They may even be a net win for cars if it means fewer buses weaving in and out of mixed traffic.

Any street with 1 lane of traffic in each direction plus on street parking can be turned into 2 lanes in 1 direction plus 1 transit lane (LRT) and will also move traffic faster eg Barrington southbound and Hollis northbound, OR Gottingen southbound and Agricola northbound. AND LRT on a couple of routes on the peninsula could take almost all buses off the peninsula. Buses from the suburbs would only go as far as the LRT line and people would change vehicles and commuter parking lots could be built for easy access to the LRT