Keep in mind that it would run on existing tracks, much of which would be in its own right of was on the peninsular cut, and also that the city was seriously considering LRT (and especially diesel light rail) before they got the federal funding for the BRT project.

Well.. there's really no question that a system running along the CN lines would be worth it, but there are liability issues and CN doesn't want to get involved. That's the main stumbling block, not the costs that would be associated with such a system (~$13M).

But that is cheap diesel commuter rail and would really only serve a small part of the city. Personally I think that the city needs to bite the bullet and construct some real light rail lines in the city. A single "loop" to begin with would be fine with eventual extensions to Clayton Park.

I think that the BRT lines are both on the Dartmouth side because there are plans to do something in Halifax in the future. An "inner-city" type system with light rail is what's needed to pull things together.

Now, where they can put rail lines is another question.. I have mentioned a SkyTrain type system before but the costs might be prohibitive. Who knows how well a system like that could be scaled down?

I think i would make sense to start with two routes, both using existing track:

West-East running from Timberlea---Lakeside Ind. Park---Bayers Lake---Chain Lake 1 (between the new subdivisions)---Bottom of Fairview/Dutch Village---Mumford---Dalhousie---St. Mary's---Seawall. If there were some way to have rails run along the boardwalk to the ferry terminal, that would be a great addition, especially for the summer months. This route would be especially effective for two other reasons: the Seawall is apparantly going to be re-developed into an arts district, so it should be a popular destination, and it is currently the docking area for cruise ships. Also, if both this line and the BRT line using the north bridge were to stop at Fairview Cove, it would essentially create a loop of the peninsula, from which other transit routes could radiate.

A second line would be the North-South Dartmouth rails connecting Burnside and Shearwater. There is a lot of development happening between the two, and Shannon Park is considered the most likely site for a future stadium. The route also connects waterfront locations more directly than the current roadways and would be able to stop at both ferry terminals, eliminating the need for proposed terminals at Shearwater, Wright's Cove and Shannon Park, and could connect to the BRT line travelling on the 111.

Another route along the Bedford Highway could follow, that was the original plan that the city was looking into. This would attract fast-growing communities like CP West and Bedford South as well as MSVU, and relieve the strain on the Bedford Highway (Although I think a stop at Bayers Lake would also be able to attract CPW area residents).

Now, where they can put rail lines is another question.. I have mentioned a SkyTrain type system before but the costs might be prohibitive. Who knows how well a system like that could be scaled down?
I think that would be greeted with the usual arguments about aesthetics in the city core and not fitting in with the character of the downtown area...unless they made the pillars out of marble or something (reasonable?) and that the pillars would have to be too wide (although I heard in Seattle they are trying to design an elevated rail system using monorail pylons, which are significantly smaller than standard rail pillars).

If the city could find a way to run rails along the waterfront/boardwalk I think that would be a good alternative to elevation, or else put the streetcar tracks back in. The problem with that, though, is there is already a very limited amount of space in the streets downtown.

It just seems like such a waste to not use the cut...it's essentially a subway system without the inconvenience or cost of ripping out all the streets.

The problem with the cut is that it is not a particularly useful route. It would be fine to have commuter rail out to Timberlea and out along the Bedford Highway along with maybe a Hollis Street extension but that alone is not really a full system. Timberlea will grow considerably in the next few years but it's still small, and not that many people actually live that close to the Bedford Highway route. I think those routes would be beneficial but they're just suburban rail lines.

More beneficial to the city would be a real rail system to get people around the core. LRT is the only viable option really and it needs a dedicated right of way to be effective. I think they could fit it in along Robie Street and maybe Quinpool Road, plus maybe Gottingen or Agricola, or even some side street like Creighton (in which case you have to worry about upsetting old traffic patterns). The downtown would be almost impossible, unless maybe a lane were sacrificed on Hollis (one way) and maybe Sackville and Cogswell or something similar.

I wonder what the costs would be like to put light rail underground only in the downtown area? That is the only "easy" option, but the costs are very likely prohibitive, plus there's the whole issue of "down times" for streets that are torn up.

The access tunnel for the water treatment project seems like it would be a good place to start for a light subway (basically like Edmonton's) but I doubt it would ever happen. It's just unfortunate how narrow the streets are downtown.

But yeah, I agree, if tracks could be placed under the narrow section of Barrington, and then emerge in the median at the wider part, it could loop back around to the Bedford Highway area, and then maybe eventually it could be led from there into Clayton Park (although the grade may be too steep to easily bring it directly)

I'm sure there are all kinds of subways in Europe that operate under similarly cramped conditions and are probably a lot larger than what would be built here. I agree though that it won't be happening anytime soon.

By the way, Halifax is already full of tunnels. One goes out to George's Island and there are many more under the streets. A whole network was built in the 18th century to evacuate the city in case of an attack.

I doubt they're up to code though. ;)

an interesting thesis abstract on LRT feasibility for roughly the same Dartmouth North-South route I mentioned... http://www.transport2000.ca/atlantic/bulletin2004fall.html
(it's near the bottom of the page)

Also, I don't see why CN would be so reluctant since I'm pretty sure the O-train and Edmonton's LRT system use CN tracks as well.

It is a bit different here from Ottawa or Edmonton because this is a major port. Some of the lines are very congested and they tend to run trains at weird times. I don't think there would be as many issues on the Dartmouth side though.

Those ridership estimates for Dartmouth are probably pretty conservative. Given the low costs involved it's pretty much a no-brainer.

Also, I don't see why CN would be so reluctant since I'm pretty sure the O-train and Edmonton's LRT system use CN tracks as well.

The LRT in Edmonton uses its own track exclusively....no CN sharing.

I got it from the Edmonton Transit website (I admit to "it's on the internet, so it must be true!" mentality) "The line extends extends from the northeast residential area of Clareview on the surface, sharing the CN Rail right-of-way until it nears downtown." Whether or not this is the case (since this came from a pdf brochure that could be 20 years old for all I know) it proves that the LRT line and CN manage(d) to co-exist. Although I suppose the fact that neither Ottawa or Edmonton are ports would change things for them.

^sorry...i thought you meant CN rails....that it does not, well it does but the CN line is long shut down in that area. But yes it does use the right of way.

Sorry it took me awhile to delete those other threads, I was offline for a few days. When posting a thread, dont press the back button after posting as it will repost your thread. I know that sometimes posting a poll can be confusing.

I think the only really feasable way to approach this is to use the existing lines that almost loop the city already. There is definatly not enought room downtown for anything using rail. It's already hard enough to get the buses moving through those cramped streets.

It would be way too expensive to go underground. Most other cities with any underground rail line aren't built on a slab of solid bedrock. Even if they could go underground there wouldn't be enough space for the stations. The actual lenght of downtown would only constitute 2 maybe three stations.

Eventually the city will need something more than buses and the existing rail lines leave much to be desired since they weren't created to get people around the city.

I think that Hollis could easily accommodate a light rail ROW without upsetting things much since it is one-way and two lanes, and it could easily connect to the South End terminal. A Water Street line is another possibility. These lines could be a component of a major redevelopment of the Cogswell Street lands.

The only problem with Hollis Street IS that it's one-way, which I imagine would increase the likelihood of head-on collisions with cars (assuming that the rail route goes both ways). If it is actually safe then yeah I'd agree Hollis street would be a good option. I think it's 3 lanes in some parts too..?

I went to the planning presentation yesterday (which was basically 2 hours of the planners saying "oh...well...I guess we'll fix that later") and it was interesting in that the planners who supported LRT, increased high-rise development etc. weren't doing much of the talking. However I mentioned commuter/light rail to a few of the staff and they seemed somewhat open about it but mentioned that they're mostly relying on increased ferries and maybe 1 or 2 more BRT routes than the 2 that they're building now. (Kind of contradictory because during the question period they implied that Purcell's Cove wouldn't be getting a ferry terminal, which makes me wonder where all these new ferries will be going...) But apparantly the plan is still open to amendments so I'd recommend that if you have any desire for rail transport in HRM that you email the planning committee (regplan@halifax.ca - it's on their website) fairly soon before the open houses wrap up in a few weeks.

On a partially related note, one of the planning staff wrote this essay a few years ago:
http://www.elements.nb.ca/theme/fuels/light/rail.htm

If a rail line were put on Hollis it would of course get its own dedicated right of way going both ways that cars simply would not be able to drive on. They'd get one lane.. I'm not talking about a setup where the rail line is just embedded in the pavement. Given the amount of traffic the street gets I'd say that's not unreasonable, and all of the other streets are given over to cars anyway.

It's pretty lame that they're not looking at light rail when they are proposing higher density development. The city today is dense enough to support light rail. It will most certainly be dense enough in 2025.

I think that the planning process is a bit of a waste of time. These "broad goals" that they've created really are what were anticipated on day one but we're now years into it. I can just imagine what we'll get in the end.. a wonderful sounding vision for the future that council will accept but then when it comes time to actually commit to real changes that take leadership and sacrifices it will get watered down to the point where it might as well not have been adopted in the first place.

I get the feeling that we have a bit of a conflicted planning department (this is clear when you look at their flip-flopping on recommendations for approving new projects, etc.). Some staff want to see the city grow into its role as a full-fledged regional centre and others just want a quaint small town. Of course, they won't get a small town, but rather a growing city with small town amenities...

It's pretty lame that they're not looking at light rail when they are proposing higher density development.
Well the problem is that a lot of people as you said want "quaint", not "high-density". What they want, it seems, is suburban sprawl, however they also want to protect the environment, they want a more extensive ferry system, but not the development to support it..etc.

Again I'd highly recommend that if you think light rail would be good for HRM, let the planning committee know. Also I'd suggest to give a fair amount of depth to your argument so that they can't just shoot back a "this wouldn't work"

I wonder where light rail lost its momentum? It was mentioned in most of the newsletter things up until this last one, and all the planning maps make a point of showing the rail lines.

Oh, I've shared my thoughts with the city planners and councillors many times in the past. I probably will again for the regional planning process but I'm not sure it will make much difference.

I don't believe that they can really rule out rail-based transit in the city, but they have the potential to slow it down, which would be terrible. There's really no viable alternative in most of the city's fastest growing areas.

The idea of commuter rail has lost steam because it's been bogged down with negociations with CN, etc., and has been on the table for over 5 years now. That's too long to maintain the public's attention.

In contrast though, BRT updates have been publicized at every opportunity, but no one really seems interested in that!

Well, nobody cares about buses of course. They're not interesting. Trains with dedicated right of ways are better in pretty much every way and they are what people want. Kelly was elected in 2000 largely on the promise of commuter rail.

Our proposed BRT lines aren't even "full" BRT. They're nicer than what's there currently and the city actually got some transit funding from the federal government for this (the project was delayed because city staff have trouble dealing with federal funding since they have so little experience with it!), but it's not really adequate for a city of 375,000 that they want to be built around transit.

I guess it's adequate for the imaginary Halifax that some people have in their minds, but regardless a 10 km trip on the 80 takes about 5 hours these days and it will only get worse.

Seems that council might re-consider rail:

http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/ParkingLotItems.html

Did anyone see the broadcast presentation on Transportation? The only mention I heard of rail was in the introductory part where they said too expensive, tracks have all been ripped out, etc etc.

Edit: they (planning staff) said the same things at the open houses earlier on in the year. They also said that only "large cities" can afford any kind of rail and that "only recently" have cities of "about 1 million" had "some modest degree of success" with rail.... apparantly Edmonton and Calgary, who implemented rail decades ago long before their population reached 1m, haven't had much success, neither has Ottawa. And of course Winnipeg and Victoria aren't really planning for rail in the near future because that would just be ridiculous. :nono:

calgarys c-train is very sucessful, with almost the same ridership as vancouvers skytrain, in a city of one million

What route would a LRT be? I think it'd be great to have light rail in such a small city.

There's no "clear" route for a light rail system aside from existing rail lines simply because of the city's geography and road network. That is one significant issue.

I think that a successful system would initially consist of suburban commuter rail type service along existing lines (note that this is probably cheap diesel LRT to begin with, not the "New York style" service the planning department likes to go on about). New rail lines embedded in existing streets (eg. from the train station along Hollis) could be added in the future.

Halifax is small but has some pretty dense areas more or less on par with anything you find in Canada outside of Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. There are also some extremely sprawly areas here but they obviously wouldn't be served by rail.

They elaborated the "parking lot" and made a bit of a questionnaire, here's the part on rail:

9. Rail
The draft Regional Plan seeks to protect rail corridors for use beyond the 25-year time frame of the plan.
Regional Council has requested further public consultation with respect to the potential of rail within HRM. The
reasons for basing the Plan on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and fast ferry rather than commuter rail are as follows:
• Tracks terminate at the VIA Rail Station, which is significantly farther walking distance to the core of
downtown employment than the Ferry Terminal or the Scotia Square BRT Station.
• Extending tracks into the downtown will be very expensive and disruptive to vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Special hybrid light/heavy rail trains would be required for which technology is unproven.
• The rail serves more potential destinations (hospitals, shopping centres) although projected ridership is lower
than for ferry and bus.
• Some sections of track have 15 mph speed limit. Trip times to VIA Station are 36 minutes from Cobequid
and 27 minutes from Mill Cove. Trip time by ferry from Mill Cove is 16 minutes.
• Single track limits frequency of trains.
• Operation within rail corridor is dependant on CN.
• The cost of rail operation is significantly more than for bus or ferry (see chart below)

Should HRM do more to invest in commuter rail than just protect rail corridors in the immediate
future?



They seem to be pointing out all the obvious problems without mentioning any benefits and implying that there's no solution to any of them.

• Tracks terminate at the VIA Rail Station, which is significantly farther walking distance to the core of
downtown employment than the Ferry Terminal or the Scotia Square BRT Station.
• Extending tracks into the downtown will be very expensive and disruptive to vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Special hybrid light/heavy rail trains would be required for which technology is unproven.
• Single track limits frequency of trains.

So run trains on multiple lines like most LRT and metro systems. I'm assuming that they are "considering" more than anything running the Rockingham-Bedford-Sprawl River route to begin with, so rather than extend this line downtown through the streets with these radical hybrid trains, build a seperate elevated or underground or streetcar system through (and hopefully beyond) downtown, with seperate trains, which transfers to the "already built" route. This would allow for more frequency since the lines would be shorter than one extended line. Also, I doubt it would be possible to reconstruct all the formerly doubled track, but "passing lanes" could be built at or between stations.

• The rail serves more potential destinations (hospitals, shopping centres) although projected ridership is lower than for ferry and bus.
I'd like to see where this projection comes from. Almost all studies have shown that people prefer trains over buses, and the ferry they seem to be planning now only appeals to people in Mill Cove.

• Some sections of track have 15 mph speed limit. Trip times to VIA Station are 36 minutes from Cobequid
and 27 minutes from Mill Cove. Trip time by ferry from Mill Cove is 16 minutes.
Yes, but the ferry only makes one stop in Mill Cove and one stop downtown. Even though the trip is longer, it would be available to more people.

The planning department also seems to only take into consideration, getting people to work and back. They should consider more urban rail (on and near the peninsula) to help take the strain off the bus system, which is way too slow and unpredictable to be very effective, especially in the denser areas.

I wouldn't put too much faith in the projections, particularly when the people making the projections clearly have their own agenda. The city planning staff seem very reluctant to produce anything but one-sided reports to demonstrate that rail isn't feasible.

If the existing track isn't ideal why aren't they exploring other obvious rail options instead of just trying to shoot down the idea for 25 years (though I highly doubt this plan will be strictly adhered to for that long)?

^Yeah, in fact there's a clause in the plan that says it has to be revised at least once every five years.

Could we get a map of a concept LRT or BRT plan for Halifax?

Here's an older version of the BRT map (the new one is pretty ambiguous) with lines drawn in for where LRT could go:

http://www.geocities.com/ak2700/BRTMAP.bmp

Blue lines = BRT routes
Red triangles = BRT stations
Red boxes = BRT stations/ferry terminals

*notice that the BRT only stops downtown, nowhere else on the peninsula

The lines I drew in are LRT (using the term loosely) routes that have been proposed or discussed with the planning department or council. The one that they are most focused on is the "orange" route (which would extend a bit farther north than this map, to Fall River). The northern part of it would have stops spaced far apart (like a commuter train) and on the peninsula they'd be closer together (like actual LRT). Beyond the Seawall area they'd most likely install new tracks either in, below, or above the street.
The "grey" route is a logical extension of this, it serves the North and West Ends (although the BRT goes through the North End it doesn't stop there). This would make the whole system more worthwhile in my opinion. Most of it could be put in the median of a wide boulevard, for example North Barrington or Chebucto.
A north-south route along the Dartmouth waterfront has also been proposed, this is shown in red.
An extension serving Fairview, Stanley Park and Bayers Lake has been proposed as well (and this track is used very rarely anyway), this is shown in teal.

All of these routes (excluding the grey one) use almost entirely tracks that are already there.

3 new ferry stations are also proposed, these are shown as black squares.

The city has a habit of producing really ambiguous maps.

Is the green supposed to be protected parkland/forest? If so then it's pretty inaccurate, particularly when it comes to the two big blobs West of the city that are already half built up.

I also agree that they'd need "North" and "West" lines to really make a rail system on the peninsula worthwhile, though the orange route to begin with would be fine. There's just no way I could see it being underused when there are packed 80s making 45 minute trips along the Bedford Highway. The area is also growing significantly (as in, about 750 housing units worth of concrete is going up right now within a 5 minute walk of the route), plus it's a scenic route that also connects to the Bedford waterfront and a few other areas such as Sunnyside Mall (I bet the owners would pay for a modest station themselves..). The claim that there's nothing around the tracks is just total BS. It's an ideal corridor.

Another useful line would be something up around Clayton Park and Fairview.

I think the green blobs are where they're planning for development in the near future (eg. Morris Lake, Bedford, etc.)

And yes, the "orange route" bypasses two of these blobs and goes right through another one, this is about even with the two BRT routes combined.

they started construction at the bridge terminal this week to accomodate the new BRT line. They're adding a new large shelter across the street from the Dartmouth Sportsplex and on the other side they're putting up an electronic sign to show the schedule.

Well, here's a link to a pdf containing some official system details and timeline: Metrolink (http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyJ8BB1JDDUUBBSTzHaMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGlxBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12lfa408n/EXP=1129535617/**http%3a//www.halifax.ca/metrotransit/documents/MetroLinkHandout.pdf)

Has anyone here actually ridden the new system yet?

I've seen it but I don't really have any reason to use it since I'm never in Dartmouth. At the Barrington terminal, though, it seems like there's a Metrolink bus there almost continuously, and they leave every 15 minutes I think.

An article from the Herald today:

U.S. fast ferry to make trial runs Friday
Bedford-downtown route proposed
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE City Hall Reporter

Halifax Regional Municipality doesn’t use its water surface as a transportation corridor nearly as much as other harbour cities.

But municipal planners are trying to improve water transport in metro, and the dawn of a new era is upon them. Trial runs for a proposed high-speed ferry from Bedford to downtown Halifax are to take place this week.

A ferry from Massachusetts is expected to arrive in Halifax Harbour this afternoon, Deputy Mayor Len Goucher said Wednesday, and trips for municipal officials and local journalists are planned for Friday.

The trials were supposed to take place in the spring but were delayed by bad weather and the vessel’s busy summer season. In April, city hall approved a $210,000 study for two days of trials that were to happen in May.

A commuter ferry from Bedford to downtown, which is to take about 15 minutes, is part of the city’s growth plan for the next 25 years. The ferry project’s preliminary budget is $15 million.

Mr. Goucher, who represents Bedford on Halifax regional council, said the high-speed ferry will take advantage of an underused resource — Halifax Harbour. He said tests to determine the track left by the craft on the Bedford Basin must be carried out before any vessels are bought.

The target date for the ferry service, which would be operated by Metro Transit, is the fall of 2006.

“Part of the federal government’s requirement for high-speed ferries is to see what . . . the product would be of the wake that’s generated from these . . . ferries,” Mr. Goucher said. “Once those we get those out of the way, it clears the way for approval for that type of vessel.”

The American ferry used for trial runs in metro is similar to ones that would not only serve Bedford, but eventually Purcells Cove. It is a modern-looking, air-conditioned vessel with most seats on the main deck and others tucked on the upper deck.

The ferry has about 200 seats but is licensed to carry 150 passengers, a municipal staffer said. “That’s related to U.S. Coast Guard certification,” said regional transportation manager Dave McCusker.

Mr. Goucher said the Bedford departure area for the trial trips will be Convoy Quay, a jetty near DeWolf Park. He said plans for a permanent ferry terminal located nearby are in the works.

“We have a lot of people looking forward to it,” Mr. Goucher said of the proposed ferry, “and I think it’s going to generate a lot of interest.”

Municipal staff will be offering three free trips to the public Saturday starting at 9:30 a.m. Seating is limited.

This is no real suprise, but in the new regional plan draft (#2), there still seems to be the fundamental idea of preventing rail transit in halifax for at least 25 years.... they're taking comments until the end of january.

Plans for the ferries also seem to be pretty vague although the Bedford->Downtown route seems pretty much guaranteed.

The worst thing is they are trying to rule out even rail on existing lines, which wouldn't be terribly expensive.

I'm not sure there's really much of an excuse for this now that CN has removed a second track. They should have taken over that second track and tried to get permission to set up a diesel light rail route. The thing would be packed, given how horribly slow and uncomfortable the 80 can be (and it probably won't get much better over the next 25 years). Such a route would pass through Fall River, Sackville, Bedford and all the way right in to the Mumford Terminal with more track going all the way to Hollis Street. It's so ideal for an existing ROW it's not even funny. It passes by MSVU, Dal, and SMU before going to what will be a second NSCAD campus. It doesn't go right into the downtown area but how much can it cost to extend the thing by 1 km? Even if people get off at the train station the walk isn't really that long.

Anyway, I don't believe that this plan will rule out rail for 25 years. If some of the issues with signalling, maximum speeds, etc. are resolved it will happen.

As for the ferries, I expect that a Bedford ferry will begin operating pretty soon, with a real terminal to be built shortly thereafter. If we get the Commonwealth Games there will also be a Shannon Park terminal, although there won't be a dedicated line. Ferries will only run when there's some kind of event.

No I'm pretty sure the planning staff just don't like trains. Maybe they're sponsored by New Flyer or something.

edit: something else that had slipped my mind... If we do get the Commonwealth Games it would be a shame not to use the Dartmouth rail line for some type of light rail, I saw a full plan for this a while ago (done by a Dalhousie planning student) and the line goes right through where the athletic complex would be. Not to mention Burnside, NSCC, both existing ferry terminals, etc. I get the feeling that trying to empty a 45000-seat stadium with just buses, the MacKay and one ferry, would be pretty frustrating.

A clear idea about rail downtown, would be raised rail. Not the style that Chicago has where it's ugly steel boxes and such, but a more graceful smi-hidden light rail. The materials we have at our disposial at this time, (ie high yeild concrete) allows us to have a base footing for the El-rail piers (what the tracks stand on) to be about 1m squared. You'd raise the platform up to the pedways that already criss-cross downtown, use the pedways as stations, and still have plenty of road space for traffic to flow through. I've drawn it up, only I haven't finished the pricing to seriously present it to the city/province. A beautiful elevated rail mass transit system in Halifax, is not a pipe dream, people are afraid to accually vision it.
Cliff

Wow! Go Reddog!

Can't wait to see/hear more about your plans so they can be discussed in more detal.

I think that when they get rid of Brightwood they should set aside a corridor of land in it for a possible future LRT line towards Cole Harbour, just to save some time later on.

So does anyone here know about seattle's transit system? i have been there and they have underground tunnels inwhich electric powered buses run the through the urban core and then emerge from the tunnels and use diesel on the way to the suburbs. seems like a logical system. tunnels of course are expensive but the benefits would be that the road bed does not have to be maintained like a normal roadway and the bus exclusive tunnels makes for avoiding traffic above ground. You can use a modified but standard bus and the costs are not those of a light rail car, tracks or roadbed balast for light rail. Since you use stqandard highways and roads outside the tunnels you are not looking at buying new lands as you are using existing outdoor roadways. The other advantage is if seattle decides to go light rail or subway on in those tunnels it could easily be done. seattle is of course famous for their monorail which was decommissioned recently.

jim jones

Any of those things would be better than what we have now. Using the pedways as stations sounds awesome if there's some way of making that work.. I've also always wondered about using the south-end rail cut bridges as stations in some form. The Maritime Centre also seems like it could accomodate some type of central Spring Garden/Barrington station, possibly in the basement?

The only problem about tunnels Jim, is you've got to have the exact opposite type of ground that we have. We're (HRM) is sitting on one of the largest deposits of bedrock, that just happens to be maybe under 6 feet of top soil. So we can't have tunnels... not until we have laser drilling...
Cliff

^ Can we see your plans?

It's a great idea. I can tell just from current traffic situations that if something isnt done we're in for some serious problems in the future. Especially for the very high traffic areas like the bridges, Portland Street, and around the Armdale rotary. And rapid bus and ferry service just isnt going to cut it. I think a light rail system is probably eventually inevitable, but not for a while most likely.

I can tell just from current traffic situations that if something isnt done we're in for some serious problems in the future.

I agree. In many parts of the city there is simply nowhere to put new roads, and the existing roads are nearing their maximum capacity despite the fact that they service areas that might see a lot more development. Consider for example the Bedford Highway and 102. Tens of thousands of new people will be moving to the area between Bedford and Halifax in the next decade or two.

Road widening is usually mentioned but the fact is that usually it amounts to small fixes that don't eliminate bottlenecks. Serious widening would cost more than transit, and land expropriation (especially when it comes to kicking people out of their homes and not just taking 4 feet of their front yard) is also something that should be avoided.

Buses are the other alternative but they either go with traffic, meaning that they add to congestion and are affected by congestion. They are also dirty. It's possible to create dedicated bus lanes, etc. but by that point you might as well just have trains.

I think that a light rail system would be ideal. It could simply go around the peninsula for a bit and then go out to Clayton Park. New suburban areas could be planned for rail lines and existing areas could be re-zoned for infill around stations. As for the whole underground/surface/elevated debate, I don't think that's important. Trains can be built in many different ways at different points depending on what's most affordable and appropriate. There could be some stretches of elevated rail in parts of the city and then surface track where there's room.

Oh, and there's another interesting issue to consider. In the regional plan I believe that there is talk of a new bridge. The MacDonald was improved slightly a few years ago but beyond that they will have to build something new. If they do, I think that they should put rail lines underneath it, or at least build it in such a way that it could accommodate them in the future.

Some interesting thoughts in this thread.

If you think about it, there is the railway cut that runs to the extreme south and terminates near the Westin, and there are (or were, at least) also lines that run along the Bedford Basin and went to approximately where Stadacona is. The gap is basically from Cogswell St to South St.

Running new lines either elevated or at surface near the waterfront makes little sense to me. You are dumping people off at the lowest part of the downtown and even a climb to Barrington St is challenging for some. I would take the new lines from the railway cut/Westin area and either run them essentially up South St (don't know what the grade issues are though, maybe a tunnel would be needed there) and then along either South Park or Robie. You could then skirt the Citadel (or go under it) and run along Brunswick where there is a reasonable amount of room, back to the Cogswell area and hook into the Stadacona tracks.

Ideally you would want trains to serve either Hollis or Barrington directly, but the only option I see is to devote 1 lane to trains on Hollis and eliminate any stopping/parking, which would be difficult but not impossible, assuming you can't tunnel under it.

Oh, and there's another interesting issue to consider. In the regional plan I believe that there is talk of a new bridge. The MacDonald was improved slightly a few years ago but beyond that they will have to build something new. If they do, I think that they should put rail lines underneath it, or at least build it in such a way that it could accommodate them in the future.

Yeah, I've been thinking for a while that thats going to be needed soon as well. I've been looking at google earth for where a good location would be for a new bridge, but really when you look at it, there really arent many ideal locations as far as I could see :dunno:. I'm sure they have something planned that makes sense though.

Running new lines either elevated or at surface near the waterfront makes little sense to me. You are dumping people off at the lowest part of the downtown and even a climb to Barrington St is challenging for some. I would take the new lines from the railway cut/Westin area and either run them essentially up South St (don't know what the grade issues are though, maybe a tunnel would be needed there) and then along either South Park or Robie. You could then skirt the Citadel (or go under it) and run along Brunswick where there is a reasonable amount of room, back to the Cogswell area and hook into the Stadacona tracks.
Tunneling would be very difficult because for one thing, it would tear up the streets for the whole process, the government would consider it too ambitious, businesses who don't see the long term benefits would be against it, etc. Not to mention the fact that they'd probably need to use heavy explosives to blast the solid granite away from under the streets...

As long as there is some efficient transfer from the train to some other mode of transportation, getting "up" downtown shouldn't be too much of a problem. I've always liked the idea of being able to step right off the boardwalk onto an LRT, and it would connect well with the downtown ferry terminal, which seems like it's going to become a huge hub over the next few years. The Barrington Street plans also mention some sort of "downtown trolley" which could easily connect with this, and it sounds like it would be either something like San Fransisco's cable cars or an extended, more decorative version of FRED.

Would it be possible to somehow work an LRT system into either of the existing bridges?

There actually isn’t solid granite under the downtown, or under most of the peninsula. The peninsula has more soil than most of the region and is mostly slate/shale, which is probably half decent for tunnelling (too hard and it’s hard to remove, too soft and it’s hard to keep the tunnels from collapsing). It’s really hard to say how viable a tunnel would be. There’s also the issue of street width and the whole headache of handling traffic during construction. Barrington and Hollis are barely wide enough to handle two subway tracks., although the downtown portion of Yonge Street in Toronto has a subway line and is not a whole lot wider.

I think that the most viable approach would be to use a lane on Hollis, which is already a one way street. The only big downside I see is that Barrington would lose a lot of traffic, although maybe the reduced bus traffic would actually make the street a little more desirable.

Here is a map I drew up for fun. It’s debatable how realistic it is. It outlines a possible route for a surface LRT system that uses Hollis, Spring Garden Road (painful), Robie, University Avenue, Quinpool (also very painful, although it’s pretty wide), etc:
http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/47856558.jpg

I think that Gottingen would be a nice candidate for LRT. It’s a long street and the area could use a lot of improvement. Spring Garden Road would be very nice.. the street is full of car traffic, but the fact is that its capacity is very small most cars are held up by pedestrians anyway. South Street is left out but it would be another very good option, since it is a straight street through well-populated areas that goes all the way from what’s now basically the edge of the downtown past the hospitals, Dal, and SMU.

I kind of doubt that the bridges could safely handle both car traffic and LRT cars, but I really don't know.

I agree that there should be some kind of cheap, quick, and easy way of climbing the hill.

The only problem about tunnels Jim, is you've got to have the exact opposite type of ground that we have. We're (HRM) is sitting on one of the largest deposits of bedrock, that just happens to be maybe under 6 feet of top soil. So we can't have tunnels... not until we have laser drilling...
Cliff

Oh I well realize about the soil differences for sure. My dad was a geology student at mount allison and his roomate was john buchanan. That is a the biggest trouble with halifax actually for development is the slate and granite for underground construction. The strange thing with the servicing for gas in nova scotia is that they went for halifax first and it really is a bog down for the installation. Market Numbers of course would dictate where you are going to lay pipe first but with pictou county's case if sempra did not encounter the government problems gas sempra could have been installed in pictou county the summer that northeast pipelines put the laterial into tuffs cove.The company could have made some money quickly and made readdy their locally hired people for halifax in the process for the next spring. right now as it stands the gas in the HRm is not even near servicing the ammount of customers that the pictou area has and that will be the case for a while.

just one of those thing were people dont know the geology,the demographics or the other factors.

The problems in halifax for a dedicated system are really space and not being able to dug tunnels easily. if it could be done that seattle transit systems was the best I have seen so far and I have riden monaco, lisbon ,los angeles, new york, atlanta, boston, vancouver,san diego,san francisco,calgary, montreal, miami. that seattle system seemed strange but after thinking about it. the most logical if it could be done.

jim jones

There actually isn’t solid granite under the downtown, or under most of the peninsula. The peninsula has more soil than most of the region and is mostly slate/shale, which is probably half decent for tunnelling (too hard and it’s hard to remove, too soft and it’s hard to keep the tunnels from collapsing). It’s really hard to say how viable a tunnel would be. There’s also the issue of street width and the whole headache of handling traffic during construction. Barrington and Hollis are barely wide enough to handle two subway tracks., although the downtown portion of Yonge Street in Toronto has a subway line and is not a whole lot wider.

I think that the most viable approach would be to use a lane on Hollis, which is already a one way street. The only big downside I see is that Barrington would lose a lot of traffic, although maybe the reduced bus traffic would actually make the street a little more desirable.

Here is a map I drew up for fun. It’s debatable how realistic it is. It outlines a possible route for a surface LRT system that uses Hollis, Spring Garden Road (painful), Robie, University Avenue, Quinpool (also very painful, although it’s pretty wide), etc:
http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/47856558.jpg

I think that Gottingen would be a nice candidate for LRT. It’s a long street and the area could use a lot of improvement. Spring Garden Road would be very nice.. the street is full of car traffic, but the fact is that its capacity is very small most cars are held up by pedestrians anyway. South Street is left out but it would be another very good option, since it is a straight street through well-populated areas that goes all the way from what’s now basically the edge of the downtown past the hospitals, Dal, and SMU.

I kind of doubt that the bridges could safely handle both car traffic and LRT cars, but I really don't know.

I agree that there should be some kind of cheap, quick, and easy way of climbing the hill.


The problem for light rail in halifax might also be grades??? going north and south is not much of a problem on the pennisula the the route from hollis to gottengen street may not be possible with the current road grade and massive excavation would have to be done. That is why you have the railway cut for via rail thru the pennisula. Dedicated electric transit bus lanes would be the ticket for encountering grades and they actually had that up until the 1960's. I remember those buses running down hollis street around 1968.
Another thing to consider with tunnelling is you can then put in the grade , have the line for a spring garden road a street parrallel to SG. your stairs would exitinside a building with an oppostie face on spring garden. that is how underground systems are created with a minimum impact to the main streets.
Subway systems are usually done in stages and in most cases excavation of the street roadbed down the required depth. Then steel of concrete supports a roof covering the works at the original grade. you build block by block without touching the intersections and then break for one to another with the intersections detouring single intersections as you go. Temporary steel bridging can also have the intersection open while you excavate underneath. Bostons big dig had much of that type of construction.The advantage over halifax again is the soil is not granite, slate of shale in boston . They had a massive tunnel jacking project under the south boston train yards for a few years.

jim jones

The whole Peninsula used to have streetcars, so I don't think grade would be much of a problem.. unless the hills grew over the last 50 years.

The whole Peninsula used to have streetcars, so I don't think grade would be much of a problem.. unless the hills grew over the last 50 years.

tracked streetcars it would be a problem for the east to west grades. Hence why San Francisco has cable cars with tracks in certain sections of the city.
Halifax does have similair topography to San Francisco but I found the grades and hills to be more extreme in san francisco. The street cars I saw for Halifax when I was young were basically electrified buses that ran with rubber wheels to the road surface.
That is what they have for the underground lines in seattle and then the diesel kicks in when the bus exits the downtown tunnels for the run to and from the suburbs.Seattle has very simmilar downtown grades to halifax and the tunnels were the solution that at this stage are using the buses. In the future seattle can go LRT in those tunnels when easments are aquiried in the suburbs. It is not going north and south in a straight line that is a problem in halifax it is going up from the Waterfront to lets say Park Lane the only way would be a round about route,tunnelling or a massive cut for a straight line shot inwhich you have a grade that rail can cope with . Rail could be done above ground in the pennisula if it was elevated. control of grade is the key to either have LRT or electricified buses liked halifax once had. I know hollis street once had street cars on rails but remember that stretch is flat . You would not be able to get up spring garden road from barrington with a steel wheeled on rail vehcile especially with rain or snow.

jim jones

tracked streetcars it would be a problem for the east to west grades. Hence why San Francisco has cable cars with tracks in certain sections of the city.
Halifax does have similair topography to San Francisco but I found the grades and hills to be more extreme in san francisco. The street cars I saw for Halifax when I was young were basically electrified buses that ran with rubber wheels to the road surface.
No... Halifax had tracked streetcars. There's pictures on the internet so you know it's true http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/halifax/exhibit.asp?ID=123. Cable cars would be pretty cool to have though. I've always sort of thought of Halifax as a mini-San Fransisco as well.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~nsgerrar/images/tramcars.jpg

Pfffffffffft, and we're supposed to believe ur Jim Jones?

No... Halifax had tracked streetcars. There's pictures on the internet so you know it's true http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/halifax/exhibit.asp?ID=123. Cable cars would be pretty cool to have though. I've always sort of thought of Halifax as a mini-San Fransisco as well.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~nsgerrar/images/tramcars.jpg


Yes I know and what did I say north and south no problem . East and West is a problem for railed transport. The map that was provided was great but did not account for grades. Brunswick street to Gottengen is to steep. does that look like Duke Street to you ? It looks like barrington to me running north to south.
I didn t even have to see the pictures as there were old tracks in the roadbed for hollis street when I lived in halifax. The logically way to run a system in halifax with rails would be a terminal near point pleasant park and lines running out from that to the north the length of the pennisula IE barrington, hollis, south park streets and others. BRT is going to be the way because of the topography and the costs. Halifax does not have the volume for LTR. As to cable cars you have basically the same type of tunnelling involved as seattle's system just much narrower tunnels of course. san francisco has three types of mass transit options cable car, street car, diesel transit bus and Bart subway. Basically they working with the landscape to provide the best solution for the problem and cable cars I bleieve dont have a maker in the world anymore.

jim jones

jim jones

The tram lines originally ran right up Spring Garden Road from Barrington Street, although they occasionally had problems at that corner, mostly because of the combination of the turn and grade I guess.

The biggest problem that I see for an LRT type system is simply the right of way issue. It would be extremely hard to find an appropriate route that could also be constructed affordably. Some stretches of road (e.g. University Avenue) have space for a rail line but they don't really connect to anything else, and the downtown area itself has very narrow streets.

The tram lines originally ran right up Spring Garden Road from Barrington Street, although they occasionally had problems at that corner, mostly because of the combination of the turn and grade I guess.

The biggest problem that I see for an LRT type system is simply the right of way issue. It would be extremely hard to find an appropriate route that could also be constructed affordably. Some stretches of road (e.g. University Avenue) have space for a rail line but they don't really connect to anything else, and the downtown area itself has very narrow streets.

interesting that a tram could make it up that. Now if you had LRT then the cornor would be a problem as you do have a train car that is two or three times longer. I think in regards to a transit soultion you had to go and use combinations like many cities. San francisco comes to mind. On main streets that you have mediums you can place BRT lanes in those mediums. The main thing is to separate transit lanes from other street transport. That is the only way you increase the ridership and effectiveness of the system.

jim jones

Halifax had small Birney cars because the larger trains used in many other cities couldn't navigate the narrow, hilly streets.

I agree that dedicated right of ways are key, although trains are also preferrable to buses for a number of reasons. They are much more comfortable, quieter, cleaner, require less fuel, and generally have a better reputation.

Halifax had small Birney cars because the larger trains used in many other cities couldn't navigate the narrow, hilly streets.

I agree that dedicated right of ways are key, although trains are also preferrable to buses for a number of reasons. They are much more comfortable, quieter, cleaner, require less fuel, and generally have a better reputation.

sure I can agree with you there but if you first do the right of ways and BRT you can eventually go to trains as the population warrents it. I cant see halifax's population warrenting that type of investment in light that hamilton, ottawa , winnepeg and quebec city dont have LRT and have larger populations. Electric/diesel combination buses are a good starting point that is a clean alternative when you run on the electric lines. If you start with the north south running main street with mediums the construction costs are not as high or long as rail. I could see even doing hollis street that way from province house south. you have a wide enough road. with a system of excalators in key locations a hollis street line should be able to serve barrington.

jim jones

Here's a crappily drawn one I made:
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h140/halpic/LRTroute.jpg
I tried to make it travel through the denser areas. Now that I look at it, I don't really like it, since it seems like something to just dump people from Clayton Park into the downtown every morning. Maybe they could add a line to Burnside and eventually the rest of Dartmouth or something..

Actually Ottawa does have a very popular, albiet new LRT line, (O-train). Winnipeg, QC and Hamilton are all looking into LRT, as are the York Region, Kitchener-Waterloo, and Victoria. Halifax has been considering some type of rail system for about a decade but nothing concrete has ever been decided.

As mentioned above, many of those cities already have or are considering LRT and at any rate they are not Halifax. They generally don't have the same concentration of employment. Halifax also has a lot of students and many compact and congested older neighbourhoods.

Those routes look pretty good but they don't serve the whole city. Also keep in mind the fact that everything within the 102 will soon be developed and Parkland Drive will go all the way to Dunbrack.

I think an ideal LRT system would serve some core areas but also some parts of the city that could see a bit of intensification.

Actually Ottawa does have a very popular, albiet new LRT line, (O-train). Winnipeg, QC and Hamilton are all looking into LRT, as are the York Region, Kitchener-Waterloo, and Victoria. Halifax has been considering some type of rail system for about a decade but nothing concrete has ever been decided.



well as to the rail system in halifax I think Peter Kelly must have has a brain hermorage that day LOLOLOL. As I recall it was the butt of many jokes. So how the funding going to go . The feds pay 50 percent. the province pays 40 and halifax pays the bus fare LOLOLOLOL.Kinda like how college funding goes right now or just like the commonwealth games.
oh by the way Bruce and I are over peeing off scots again on the glasgow commonwealth games trend . it seems the committee forgot of one thing as of april 15th in regards to the commonwealth games site. They forgot to approach the department of national defence and thus the crown corporation to purchase or have donated the land. It would be extremely funny to see
a bid with land purchased at the very last minute and then the environmential accessment teams tell the citizens that the place needed a 100 million dollar clean up. Could you say overthrow the HRM government Boy and Girls of course you can. LOLOLOL
jim jones

Why are you bragging about being an annoyance to other people?

Why are you bragging about being an annoyance to other people?

Because its Jim Jones. He just likes being an ass lol

Yeah... really does need to get a life. He really is a complete joke.

Yeah... he really does need to get a life...lol... He really is a complete joke.

Now now now fellas, He does play the devils advocate very well, thank you Jim, every forum needs one, keeps some people grounded, others on their toes. Plus, it's not like he's given any serious original idea himself, he's rambled on about the Seattle transit system, but that has no bearing on Halifax, his point about BRT, well, that's not new, that's been on the books for years. I digress, did anyone hear about the kidnapping of oil workers in the capitol of Nigeria? Militants over-ran a rig on the river delta, and Kidnapped 8 workers, 2 were Brits, one was a Canadian... this is sick to say, but things are looking a bit better all the time.
Cliff

Reddog, would you be able to show renderings of the system you worked out?

Now now now fellas, He does play the devils advocate very well, thank you Jim, every forum needs one, keeps some people grounded, others on their toes. Plus, it's not like he's given any serious original idea himself, he's rambled on about the Seattle transit system, but that has no bearing on Halifax, his point about BRT, well, that's not new, that's been on the books for years. I digress, did anyone hear about the kidnapping of oil workers in the capitol of Nigeria? Militants over-ran a rig on the river delta, and Kidnapped 8 workers, 2 were Brits, one was a Canadian... this is sick to say, but things are looking a bit better all the time.
Cliff

Omg that is funny. to me a kidnapping case on an offshore rig in nigeria would be like saying halifax has security problems because of the terrorist plot in toronto. Related in geography but nearly the same types of distances and the same goes for the the relationship to events 7 years away. keep ion mind that the same type of talk surrounded the choice of kingston jamiaca for the 1966 CWG's and nothing happened at all. Mike Ferrell is the president of the federation and he has first hand knowledge of the talk about kingston in 1966 as he is a man of color from jamiaca.
And as to the seattle system. Been there rode it,seems like a great simple system that defeats the problems of roadbed grade that people here tend to ignore in their dream plans for a system in halifax. Rubber wheels to ashphalt makes for a more flexable and less expensive system. you are able to use tunnels in the case of steep grades, narrow streets and then have the same buses as BRT or standard transit bus routes like seattle has in the suburbs. I watched a Discovery channel program on the Goddard tunnel in switzerland and it seems solid rock is easier to cut through then loose rock. It would be great to have the soil of boston or even other places in nova scotia that you can easily tunnel jack. In the case of the CNR having the Halifax Pennisula cut it shows how grades are hard to encounter with steel wheels to rails. Here in the trenton rail car plant it would be common for a couple of guys to push a completed railcar out the doors with a small bit of efford in the summer but try doing that in the winter with frost of the rails and you find out the advantages for easy of motion and the disadvantage of traction on rails.

Some things that people here may not think about with LTR is you have to have a new maintenance facility for LTR cars which requires a good sized peice of land in the right of way for your system. With a BRT combination tunnell system it is as simple as running the buses on diesel out to the burnside transit sheds and having made a small expansion in the shops for servicing the electrical components of combination diesel/electric buses.
With LRT you also get into roadway maintanence issues that require more skills and equipment that neither city or transit comission have at this time.
BRT can provide the base to upgrade to LTR in the future.


I know there is shale and slate in the HRM region like Manhattan in many ways. The thing is combinations of ideas are the key.

jim jones

Usually I disagree with this guy but...


We need mass transit, not wider streets

By Charles Moore
The Daily News

Twelve Chebucto Road homeowners have received notice that HRM is planning to expropriate large chunks of their front yards in a street-widening project to ease congestion on the Armdale rotary. The city proposes to compensate the property-owners for the "fair market price" of their land, but an abstract assessment based on square footage doesn't take into account diminishment of resale value of the main properties, nor diminishment of quality of life imposed by having heavy traffic roaring by at closer quarters, felling of trees, and so forth.

Reportedly, a petition opposing the project has been signed by nearly 200 neighbourhood residents.

The rationale for this street-widening scheme is largely cost. It's a relatively cheaper way to address traffic congestion at the rotary, originally designed nearly 50 years ago to handle a volume of 5,000 vehicles daily, but now clogged with more than 10 times that number.

Easing the logjam by adding another lane to Chebucto Road below Mumford Road is a quick and dirty fix that will just download the problem, which is too many cars for the finite geographic reality of the Halifax peninsula to reasonably accommodate, a few blocks further north. It denotes lack of both perception and vision.

What Halifax really needs is the sort of light rail system that serves many American cities with large suburban commuter traffic.

A subway would be prohibitively expensive for a small city like Halifax, but above-ground light rail wouldn't, especially since corridor infrastructure is already in place. Particularly promising would be a variant known as diesel light rail (DLR), such as Ottawa-Carleton's OC Transpo system, which can operate on existing tracks but has the potential to reduce operating costs by up to 40 per cent compared with conventional trains thanks to one-person operation, use of standard bus components, lower fuel consumption, and potential for direct service into downtown cores via streetcar-style track extensions.

HRM planners have investigated light rail, but for some reason have not proceeded, perhaps because startup cost has been estimated at between $10 million and $20 million, but that would be a wiser investment than $3.5 million to widen Chebucto Road.

No single alternative to high dependency on private vehicle transportation will likely ever be wholly adequate. Besides light rail, the high-speed catamaran ferry from Bedford to downtown that was tested recently has much to recommend it, as would possible expansion of the existing Dartmouth ferry service and more enhancements to Metro Transit like the MetroLink Portland Hills Link and Woodside Link express services. Perhaps a ferry from Herring Cove to downtown with park-and-ride lots at the Herring Cove end would be a sensible plan as well. Use the harbour to its best advantage the way New York does with the Staten Island ferries.

The necessity of doing something about car and truck traffic won't disappear anytime soon, but needs to be addressed with more creative strategies than just widening streets and speeding up excess volume through bottlenecks.

One idea with considerable merit would be to encourage commuter car-pooling by limiting traffic on certain lanes and/or times of the day to vehicles carrying two or more passengers. With respect to the Armdale rotary, the logical candidate for that strategy would be one of the existing two lanes inbound or outbound on Quinpool Road between the rotary and Robie Street, implementation of which would be a lot cheaper than expropriating private property and widening Chebucto Road, as well as quicker to get up and running.

Another slowdown identified as affecting traffic flow at the rotary is drivers stopping at pedestrian crosswalks. While that might be addressed to a degree with better traffic-light co-ordination, the ideal, at least where there is significant volume of pedestrian traffic, would be pedestrian bridges or tunnels.

There are more advantages to curbing use of automobiles than relieving traffic gridlock. Incentives for driving smaller vehicles and penalties for running larger ones should be part of the mix, too, as should considering the commuter implications when issuing permits for off-peninsula condominium development. A holistic planning approach with access to convenient, efficient mass transit as an integrated element is what's needed.

Usually I disagree with this guy but...


We need mass transit, not wider streets

By Charles Moore
The Daily News

Twelve Chebucto Road homeowners have received notice that HRM is planning to expropriate large chunks of their front yards in a street-widening project to ease congestion on the Armdale rotary. The city proposes to compensate the property-owners for the "fair market price" of their land, but an abstract assessment based on square footage doesn't take into account diminishment of resale value of the main properties, nor diminishment of quality of life imposed by having heavy traffic roaring by at closer quarters, felling of trees, and so forth.

Reportedly, a petition opposing the project has been signed by nearly 200 neighbourhood residents.

The rationale for this street-widening scheme is largely cost. It's a relatively cheaper way to address traffic congestion at the rotary, originally designed nearly 50 years ago to handle a volume of 5,000 vehicles daily, but now clogged with more than 10 times that number.

Easing the logjam by adding another lane to Chebucto Road below Mumford Road is a quick and dirty fix that will just download the problem, which is too many cars for the finite geographic reality of the Halifax peninsula to reasonably accommodate, a few blocks further north. It denotes lack of both perception and vision.

What Halifax really needs is the sort of light rail system that serves many American cities with large suburban commuter traffic.

A subway would be prohibitively expensive for a small city like Halifax, but above-ground light rail wouldn't, especially since corridor infrastructure is already in place. Particularly promising would be a variant known as diesel light rail (DLR), such as Ottawa-Carleton's OC Transpo system, which can operate on existing tracks but has the potential to reduce operating costs by up to 40 per cent compared with conventional trains thanks to one-person operation, use of standard bus components, lower fuel consumption, and potential for direct service into downtown cores via streetcar-style track extensions.

HRM planners have investigated light rail, but for some reason have not proceeded, perhaps because startup cost has been estimated at between $10 million and $20 million, but that would be a wiser investment than $3.5 million to widen Chebucto Road.

No single alternative to high dependency on private vehicle transportation will likely ever be wholly adequate. Besides light rail, the high-speed catamaran ferry from Bedford to downtown that was tested recently has much to recommend it, as would possible expansion of the existing Dartmouth ferry service and more enhancements to Metro Transit like the MetroLink Portland Hills Link and Woodside Link express services. Perhaps a ferry from Herring Cove to downtown with park-and-ride lots at the Herring Cove end would be a sensible plan as well. Use the harbour to its best advantage the way New York does with the Staten Island ferries.

The necessity of doing something about car and truck traffic won't disappear anytime soon, but needs to be addressed with more creative strategies than just widening streets and speeding up excess volume through bottlenecks.

One idea with considerable merit would be to encourage commuter car-pooling by limiting traffic on certain lanes and/or times of the day to vehicles carrying two or more passengers. With respect to the Armdale rotary, the logical candidate for that strategy would be one of the existing two lanes inbound or outbound on Quinpool Road between the rotary and Robie Street, implementation of which would be a lot cheaper than expropriating private property and widening Chebucto Road, as well as quicker to get up and running.

Another slowdown identified as affecting traffic flow at the rotary is drivers stopping at pedestrian crosswalks. While that might be addressed to a degree with better traffic-light co-ordination, the ideal, at least where there is significant volume of pedestrian traffic, would be pedestrian bridges or tunnels.

There are more advantages to curbing use of automobiles than relieving traffic gridlock. Incentives for driving smaller vehicles and penalties for running larger ones should be part of the mix, too, as should considering the commuter implications when issuing permits for off-peninsula condominium development. A holistic planning approach with access to convenient, efficient mass transit as an integrated element is what's needed.


well two ideas that are old and I am surprized have not been forwarded here are A. a automobile tunnel from the south end of halifax to the end of the circumferencial highway in woodside. and B. a bridge or tunnell transititing the northwest arm. The B. option would certainly help with armdale rotary. I can remember the days of the micmac rotary and how that is a distant memory now as the traffic flows are pretty smooth post rotary. If you have an easier route for people in downtown halifax to get to dartmouth and the bedroom communites then the load of traffic to the bridges will certainly be reduced. you could even do something as inovative as one way traffic in the tunnel for ingoing and out going demand times. Including a bus only lane would also be wise. i could even see with a harbour tunnel having the third lane on the mac donald bridge go to bus only.
I know the expense of land in the south part of halifax but tunnels for bodies of water are simple with concrete casons placed on the harbour floor as opposed to tunnelling beneath the harbour in the hard rock. it was done in boston and other places.

I think bluenoser you are right in that it is the truck and car traffic that is the problem and that will not be cured soon even with an LTR system. The thing I see is that if you have a system inwhich bascially a bus is passing you in a bus lane then you will probably get the hint. with LTR that is not as relatable.

jim jones

A. a automobile tunnel from the south end of halifax to the end of the circumferencial highway in woodside. and B. a bridge or tunnell transititing the northwest arm. The B. option would certainly help with armdale rotary.

jim jones

Yeah that would be a good idea, but I believe the complaints from the public of that area would be enough to drown it, especially with a bridge idea.

The only problem is there is no realistic place to put in enough bus lanes for that kind of system to be worthwhile. Even the Metrolink to Portland Hills is slower (or at least no faster) than just driving.

Yeah that would be a good idea, but I believe the complaints from the public of that area would be enough to drown it, especially with a bridge idea.

and that is why it has not happened. To me if you realy want a city to grow and be habital the urban planning has to advance. Tunnels are the best way with the least amount of impact. With all new contruction like that a dedicated bus only lane has to be included in the plans. Once you start to do that then you attract more ridership and hopefully reduce traffic. If the complaints from the public for a private project like the Gulf Towers is any sign the HRM would certainly be in a battle over tunnels from the south end.
The biggest problem I believe in traffic for the pennisula is the amount of traffic from the dartmouth side of the harbour. Relieve that problem and you relieve traffic in halifax proper. Mass transit will only do so much in a north american car culture.
At 25 million a mile LTR is pretty expensive so considering a tunnel from the south end to woodside would not be unreasonable compared to the system some have laid out here for LTR.
Another angle for a tunnel across the harbour would also devert container truck traffic from the south end terminal from exiting the pennisula via the mackay bridge and other points presently exiting the pennisula to up the circumferancial highway, dartmouth and out of town quicker. There would also be a change in deleivery patterns to the south end of the city. By providing the means to exit the south end via new routes you releive the traffic problems.
If you surveyed most people I bet you would find transit rideship is still mostly people who dont own cars and thus the car culture problem prevails.

jim jones

Relieve that problem and you relieve traffic in halifax proper
Well not really, then all the traffic gets dumped onto the peninsula and the gridlocks are just shifted west.

If you surveyed most people I bet you would find transit rideship is still mostly people who dont own cars and thus the car culture problem prevails.
I doubt it... probably about 50/50

And it's spelled LRT as in "Light Rail Transit". L R T

Tunnels built for automobile traffic are extremely expensive. The Ted Williams tunnel in Boston cost approximately $2 billion. A tunnel in Halifax would be shorter and would have fewer lanes plus construction costs are lower here, but we're still talking hundreds of millions.

Even the rotary widening scheme is supposed to cost $3.5 million, so transportation projects aimed at cars are obviously not cheap. In fact, they are considerably more expensive than rail and one rail line can carry more passengers than many highways, with fewer accidents and lower costs to the private individuals. Roads and highways are good in some respects but in many other situations rail is much better.

The estimated startup costs for commuter rail are about $13 million, and light rail $20-30 million. Commuter rail would serve suburbs as far out as Fall River and a tunnel would only serve commuters along a single route, and in a few years the tunnel would become congested anyway.

For the record on Tunnels in Halifax, I'd just like to point out that and you can't build a proper traffic intended tunnel in Halifax, it is physically, and geologically impossible. Plus the only tunnels there are, are old, old, military tunnels that if disturbed would cause serious problems with the water, and other such underground utilities. I will say this once, <ahem> Everything, blow 6' underground in the encompassing Halifax Metro area, is Bedrock. You can't build safe, or cost efficant, enough of a Tunnel in Halifax, at all. Unless we discover/create laser drilling on a mass scale. :cheers:

Cliff

For the record on Tunnels in Halifax, I'd just like to point out that and you can't build a proper traffic intended tunnel in Halifax, it is physically, and geologically impossible. Plus the only tunnels there are, are old, old, military tunnels that if disturbed would cause serious problems with the water, and other such underground utilities. I will say this once, <ahem> Everything, blow 6' underground in the encompassing Halifax Metro area, is Bedrock. You can't build safe, or cost efficant, enough of a Tunnel in Halifax, at all. Unless we discover/create laser drilling on a mass scale. :cheers:

Cliff

I think the mont blanc and goddard tunnells are thru some very hard rock. A cross harbour tunnel you dont even tunnel thru the rock. you laydown concrete encasement sections on the harbour floor with a trench dug in the harbour floor. A traffic tunnel in halifax certainly is not a solution but transitting the harbour and the northwest arm would certainly change the entire traffic flow. Inglis Street could be the connector with not too much trobule excpet on the northwest arm side.
A tunnel for a underground system can be as simple as digging a street up excavating down to a level that will accomediate the clearanrce for the vehcile you allow in the tunnel and covering over with reinforced concrete. Now of course there is the expense. the seattle system I talked about was 444 million to construct for about 1.2 miles of tunnel. it certainly gets you out of the downtown fast but at what cost? There are different solutions for different areas of the city and not one idea will cure the problem.


jim jones

Tunnels built for automobile traffic are extremely expensive. The Ted Williams tunnel in Boston cost approximately $2 billion. A tunnel in Halifax would be shorter and would have fewer lanes plus construction costs are lower here, but we're still talking hundreds of millions.

Even the rotary widening scheme is supposed to cost $3.5 million, so transportation projects aimed at cars are obviously not cheap. In fact, they are considerably more expensive than rail and one rail line can carry more passengers than many highways, with fewer accidents and lower costs to the private individuals. Roads and highways are good in some respects but in many other situations rail is much better.

The estimated startup costs for commuter rail are about $13 million, and light rail $20-30 million. Commuter rail would serve suburbs as far out as Fall River and a tunnel would only serve commuters along a single route, and in a few years the tunnel would become congested anyway.


well considering the metro link project is 15 million i would go back and look at the LRT costs you have seen. no offence. Put a four lane tunnel where I said and both bridges traffic will come down. you also bypass much of the penisula if a person wants to gets to the chain lake area and on the trip from halifax to eastern passage or forest hills you avoid the older parts of dartmouth. with that type of project you are really completing what many cities have . a highway/roadway system that By passes the city on all sides.

jim jones

I think the mont blanc and goddard tunnells are thru some very hard rock. A cross harbour tunnel you dont even tunnel thru the rock. you laydown concrete encasement sections on the harbour floor with a trench dug in the harbour floor. A traffic tunnel in halifax certainly is not a solution but transitting the harbour and the northwest arm would certainly change the entire traffic flow. Inglis Street could be the connector with not too much trobule excpet on the northwest arm side.
A tunnel for a underground system can be as simple as digging a street up excavating down to a level that will accomediate the clearanrce for the vehcile you allow in the tunnel and covering over with reinforced concrete. Now of course there is the expense. the seattle system I talked about was 444 million to construct for about 1.2 miles of tunnel. it certainly gets you out of the downtown fast but at what cost? There are different solutions for different areas of the city and not one idea will cure the problem.


jim jones

True, fine examples of those such tunnels would be Philedelphia's Benjamin Franklin (is it with a y?) Blvd. Beautiful civil design in that city, I kind of like to think of it as Bigger Halifax, more so than Boston. The only problem with laying tunnel in Halifax Harbour, is the shipping lanes. The size of ships they're expecting for the port of Halifax, at the Ceres Terminal, are going to need all the draft they can get. A tunnel migh work for the Northwest Arm, instead of a ferry, or bridge. It would cut the taffic in the rotary down consiberably. (pardon the spelling, I'm kind of on a bender right now) What about just re-organizing what we have right now ie, remove repeated routes, there's like 4 bus routes doing the same route on Portland, going from Portland Hills, to downtown, or to the bridge. "Trim the Fat" as it were, and incorporate the unused buses, as new Link buses, and expand the express bus routes. You'd have enough extra buses, to add at least 3 more routes, Clayton Park maybe to Downtown, Porto Bello to Downtown, Spryfield to Downtown. While have regular buses "feed" the Link terminals, working in the community. Work the time schedual to incorperate more buses at peak travel times, to allow shorter wait times, almost like a train network. Basically run the bus times and routes as if it were a rail network. Incorperate more bus only lanes for the express buses, as the city grows, who knows, have the tunnel crossing the northwest arm have two bus only lanes, for the Queensland to Downtown Route :) . I digress, tunnels would impede the shipping routes for the container piers, now if you just moved all the container piers to eastern passage where they belonged in the first place, then you wouldn't have a problem with tunnels, the only boat activity after that herculean of a milestone, would be personal craft, some military, and ferry traffic. By that time the Ferry system would be so efficent that there would be no need of tunnels, they'd just invest into more ferries, for shorter wait times, more people, and more express buses, to add to the routes, and more bus only lanes, for shorter waits at the terminals. If only I had a million billion dollars... Halifax would be my SimCity... :cheers: !

Cliff

well exactly on the sim city thing cliff. Halifax is a difficult city as is boston for the waterways . a northwest arm tunnel to me is one transportation project that would be a no brainer. as to draft on container ships I know that is an issue but I think to a certain point in the future if the drafts get deeper yuo will see a terminal in eastern passage or even the Strait of Canso as with increasing drafts you also have increasing heights that these ship grow by. I worked on the Queen Mary 2 and it was incredible to think that ship only cleared the new york harbour narrow bridge by 9 feet for height. with tunnells It is a matter of excavating to lay tunnell casings and if you need to bury then you dig that much further. I am sure the harbour is way deeper then container ship drafts while get in the near future and when it gets to that point i think the bridge height will be the issue.
jim jones

I love the idea of the northwest arm tunnel. I would probably increase traffic on my street, but oh well, thats progress. I am no NIMBY.

I think that a Northwest Arm bridge would be feasible. A tunnel probably wouldn't be because of the grades involved. Clearance for boats isn't really an issue for the Arm.

A third bridge over the harbour has also been talked about.

I really don't see any huge benefit for tunnels and they are much more expensive.

I think that a Northwest Arm bridge would be feasible. A tunnel probably wouldn't be because of the grades involved. Clearance for boats isn't really an issue for the Arm.

A third bridge over the harbour has also been talked about.

I really don't see any huge benefit for tunnels and they are much more expensive.
A bridge would be more conventional, but I imagine the wealthy residence of the area would strongly oppose it. Thats why I like the idea of the tunnel. No one will see it.

Maybe they wouldn't notice it being built. That's the only hope really. From what I can tell with the regional planners its not in the books for the next 25 years, even a rail system has a better chance. They're just relying on the rotary conversion (which probably won't help without adding more lanes to Chebucto and definitely won't work without clear right-of-way rules) as well as a ferry route to Purcells Cove/Herring Cove. That's about all that anyone south of Fairview can expect for the next 2.5 decades.

Maybe they wouldn't notice it being built. That's the only hope really. From what I can tell with the regional planners its not in the books for the next 25 years, even a rail system has a better chance. They're just relying on the rotary conversion (which probably won't help without adding more lanes to Chebucto and definitely won't work without clear right-of-way rules) as well as a ferry route to Purcells Cove/Herring Cove. That's about all that anyone south of Fairview can expect for the next 2.5 decades.

Well northwest arm tunnel would be politically easier to sell in that part of the city for sure. If south were to make south street the launching point it might be harder then the quinpool road launch point. south you would have the possiblity of connecting a northwest arm tunnell in a straight shot to a harbour tunnell ending up at the circumferancial highway in woodside. Even a over pass type reworking on the armdale rotary would be good.

I just dont think you have the population density for LTR and that still would not cure the bottle neck with the pennisula. Somehow you have to address the traffic flow cross harbour and ferries will not do it either. It is a car and truck culture and the area is very spread out with barriers for rail.

jim jones

Edmonton and Calgary have both had successful rail systems for decades, Edmonton's being built when it was only slightly more populated than Halifax is now. Both of these cities are less dense and much much more spread out than Halifax is. Keep in mind that Victoria and Kitchener-Waterloo are both in the planning stages of an LRT system, both of these cities being of similar size and density to Halifax. Maybe if these work out it will make more of a case for the feasibility of it here.

LRT is a long way off here considering we dont even have a decent highway system. There is way to many building huggers trying to Keep things from progressing. Look at the stink people are making on Chebucto Rd just because they are going to add another lane. LRT would cause a revolt.....

LRT is a long way off here considering we dont even have a decent highway system. There is way to many building huggers trying to Keep things from progressing. Look at the stink people are making on Chebucto Rd just because they are going to add another lane. LRT would cause a revolt.....

I could see the right of way battles now, or the noise or the aroma freee lobby.
Halifax has far too many crying special interest groups that are constantly at the government tit. Any excuse except common sense to stop progress.

jim jones

I could see the right of way battles now, or the noise or the aroma freee lobby.
Halifax has far too many crying special interest groups that are constantly at the government tit. Any excuse except common sense to stop progress.

jim jones

Atleast we agree on something lol. Those people almost make me sick with some of the excuses they come up with.

I don’t know why people think that LRT is so expensive. Diesel light rail doesn’t require a whole lot more than tracks and cars, and a system doesn’t have to be that costly as long as it is built intelligently as money becomes available and as demand grows. Halifax also has many neighbourhoods that are as dense or more dense than what is serviced by LRT in Edmonton or Calgary, so it is just silly to say that it is “too spread out”.

It’s extremely short-sighted to say that LRT shouldn’t be built because it supposedly doesn’t solve the real “problem” of getting people on and off of the peninsula (which can supposedly be solved more cheaply through mass expropriations and heavy road and tunnel construction.. heh). LRT would mostly solve the problem of excessive bus traffic and would make medium length trips around the peninsula a lot more pleasant, plus it could eventually connect to Clayton Park and beyond using much less land than would be required for highways. It could become a basis for intensification on the peninsula, which would be a good thing as far as traffic is concerned.

I don’t know why people think that LRT is so expensive. Diesel light rail doesn’t require a whole lot more than tracks and cars, and a system doesn’t have to be that costly as long as it is built intelligently as money becomes available and as demand grows. Halifax also has many neighbourhoods that are as dense or more dense than what is serviced by LRT in Edmonton or Calgary, so it is just silly to say that it is “too spread out”.

It’s extremely short-sighted to say that LRT shouldn’t be built because it supposedly doesn’t solve the real “problem” of getting people on and off of the peninsula (which can supposedly be solved more cheaply through mass expropriations and heavy road and tunnel construction.. heh). LRT would mostly solve the problem of excessive bus traffic and would make medium length trips around the peninsula a lot more pleasant, plus it could eventually connect to Clayton Park and beyond using much less land than would be required for highways. It could become a basis for intensification on the peninsula, which would be a good thing as far as traffic is concerned.

Well the thing is your traffic and wait times in halifax are pale in comparsion to other places. When the city has to have a speical funding meeting improvements they have to do with Fire Stations in the HRM then they will certainly not be able to come up with the money for right of ways or the system. Again the child named HRM cries for its lack a of good palnning and money management to be solved by others. The problem is the bottleneck of the pennisula, you open that up and the small traffic problems are solved. LRt will not make any difference if it dopes not exit the pennisula. You would just be giving people who either walk, ride a bike or use a bus a nicer way to get short distance on the pennisula. Right of ways for LRT would be huge for a system. As to cliff who said about harbour depth and shipping lanes it turns out at low tide Halifax Harbour is 18 metres minimum depth or 60 feet. New york and boston harbours are having to dredge to 50 feet low tide depth for the new generation of container ships and what is in sotre for the future of that industry. We are actually is better shape for our shipping lanes in the harbour then all the eastern seaboard. If they need 100 feet of depth then they will start going to canso and developing a container pier there.
A tunnel corss harbour is techincally feaseable it hs the finance part that would be the question.

jim jones

Atleast we agree on something lol. Those people almost make me sick with some of the excuses they come up with.

Yes glad I dont live in the HRM because that sloanne woman would probably site me for farting in public violating the scent free environment. It get so stupid it is unbeleivable. Went for a medical and you couldnt use a cell phone in the reception area. That what commies do in the city ,think of every way to make life troublesome to express false pwoer over the population.

jim jones

It’s extremely short-sighted to say that LRT shouldn’t be built because it supposedly doesn’t solve the real “problem” of getting people on and off of the peninsula (which can supposedly be solved more cheaply through mass expropriations and heavy road and tunnel construction.. heh). LRT would mostly solve the problem of excessive bus traffic and would make medium length trips around the peninsula a lot more pleasant, plus it could eventually connect to Clayton Park and beyond using much less land than would be required for highways. It could become a basis for intensification on the peninsula, which would be a good thing as far as traffic is concerned.

I maintain that until HRM wakes up and realizes that its 1950s road and street network is totally inadequate for a city of this size LRT would be an utter waste of money, just as the foolishness around bike lanes currently is. When you see the Bicentennial solidly packed with cars in all 4 lanes in either direction at certain times there can be no doubt we need to fix things. Forget about the stop and go traffic for miles on the Bicentennial inbound in the AM. LRT will do nothing to handle the dramatically increased volume of heavy trucks that I now see within the confines of the old city, nor for those who do not work downtown and/or those who need mobility throughout the day. On the priority list, it ought to be pretty low in lieu of building a decent road network worthy of a city of this size. But HRM is trapped (and will continue to be according to the 25-year planning strategy recently floated) by the crazy belief that new roads are bad and transit will solve all our traffic woes. The people who believe that are, in a word, nuts.

Where are the new roads gonna go though? Most of the built up areas are, well, built up. Also, the port is moving towards using more trains and less trucks to ship off of the peninsula.

Where are the new roads gonna go though? Most of the built up areas are, well, built up. Also, the port is moving towards using more trains and less trucks to ship off of the peninsula.

Existing rights of way will need to be widened by property acquisitions. In other cases there is suitable vacant or underused land (the stretch from the Windsor St exchange to Bayers Rd behind Superstore comes to mind).

If more trains are being used, please explain why the double-tracking that had been in the railway cut for years is now down to a single track. And also please explain the massive number of trucks I now see on the peninsula every day.

There is no question -- we need proper roads to get the traffic off residential streets with 4-way stops and traffic lights.

I couldnt agree more with Keith P. This city is doomed if they dont get serious about their Highway system. It will be hard and expensive but nothing flows. I know the city is old but even the newer road developments dont make sense.

man I would hate to be in NYC , los angeles or chcago with anyone here. The traffic is nut there and there so much you can do. To me halifax's traffic is small time compared to what I have seen down south.

jim jones

man I would hate to be in NYC , los angeles or chcago with anyone here. The traffic is nut there and there so much you can do. To me halifax's traffic is small time compared to what I have seen down south.

jim jones

I have been to cities of millions myself (I.E Toronto, Miami, Rome, etc...) And the traffic is far worse in those. But for cities Halifax's size, the traffic here is pretty rediculous. For cities under 500,000, I have to say Halifax is among the worst I've seen, and the problem can only get worse without a fix. Besides, even if the traffic isnt THAT bad here, why leave it as is when improvements can and should be made?

I have been to cities of millions myself (I.E Toronto, Miami, Rome, etc...) And the traffic is far worse in those. But for cities Halifax's size, the traffic here is pretty rediculous. For cities under 500,000, I have to say Halifax is among the worst I've seen, and the problem can only get worse without a fix. Besides, even if the traffic isnt THAT bad here, why leave it as is when improvements can and should be made?

Oh I agree you have to have a good plan but what people here dont really see is that an investmest of 20,000 dollars and up for an automobile by each person involved in the problem is not going to be changed with mass transit. That has been shown time and agian in every major city in the americans. I have been to some of the old cities in europe and it seems to work there along with motor scouters and bicycles but with our open spaces and distances you will never have an LTR system that will A. serve the public for the need and B. cost a ton of money with not increase in volume either on to mass transit or off of automobiles. When I was in Rio recently I knew there was a great subway system but I took a cab for a city tour and the traffic was not that bad.

If more trains are being used, please explain why the double-tracking that had been in the railway cut for years is now down to a single track. And also please explain the massive number of trucks I now see on the peninsula every day.

Moving towards, as in they haven't done it yet. It's been talked about pretty recently by the port and the city, and the tracks were removed about 5 years ago... and they belonged to CN, the city and port had almost no say in the removal, in fact the city was trying to save the tracks to use for commuter rail.


If Halifax has too much "open space" for LRT (not LTR) to have any use whatsoever, how do you explain the success it's had in Edmonton and Calgary? And why would you take a cab in Rio if you knew it had a great subway system?

Moving towards, as in they haven't done it yet. It's been talked about pretty recently by the port and the city, and the tracks were removed about 5 years ago... and they belonged to CN, the city and port had almost no say in the removal, in fact the city was trying to save the tracks to use for commuter rail.


If Halifax has too much "open space" for LRT (not LTR) to have any use whatsoever, how do you explain the success it's had in Edmonton and Calgary? And why would you take a cab in Rio if you knew it had a great subway system?


well pretty simple edmonton and calgary has the volume and still has to have massive subsidies that their economy can efford . We have neither the economy or volume to subsidize an LRT. The reason I did not take the subway in Rio was very simple taking a cab had me see the city on a tour for about 40 dollars and that was everywheres. The subway would have me in joepardy of crime and not being able to see the sites of course.
In the americas there is a class distinction with mass transit. those who can afford a car and those who cant. You see that even in south america.
In europe cars are way too expensive to buy and to run.

jim jones

^ The thing is that back when they built their systems, Edmonton and Calgary "didn't" have the volume to support this. Halifax's municipal planning staff are always claiming that LRT is absolutely out of the question for a city under 1 million, yet Edmonton built the first LRT system in North America while its population was hovering around half a million.

Anyway, more news.. well not really news. But it's from the newspaper

Halifax in 16 minutes

Bedford commuters fancy fast ferries

By Rachel Boomer
The Daily News

BEDFORD - Bedfordites have expressed "significantly" more interest in a fast ferry to downtown Halifax than the city originally thought, metro's top administrator said yesterday.

Chief administrative officer Dan English said a study that will be presented to council in early August shows the 25-minute fast-ferry trip would be popular not just for commutes from Bedford, but for people taking leisure trips.

"Through the course of this study, we found there is a greater interest," English said. "(That) helps, in terms of operating costs."

The study is being finalized now. English said it will be presented to council in early August.

The fast-ferry proposal is part of HRM's 25-year regional plan. Original cost estimates suggested the city would have to spend $14 million for two ferries, parking and renovations on the terminal building. Trials of the ferry last fall showed that at 28 knots, the ferry can reduce the Bedford Highway commute to just 16 minutes. They'd carry 180 people apiece.

English said if council backs the project, he'd like to apply for federal funding under the Municipal-Rural Infrastructure Program, rather than ask for money from transit or environmental programs.

"It's our top priority in terms of funding."

Eventually, the ferry system could also go to Shannon Park - part of the Commonwealth Games proposal would see housing built there - and to Purcell's Cove.

Critics have pointed out that bus systems are cheaper to start up than ferries. The new MetroLink service to Sackville and Cole Harbour has proven extremely popular, but English said it's ferries, not buses, that are being considered for Bedford.

"I'm not sure we ever looked at a MetroLink for Bedford, per se. I'm pretty sure we did not," English said.

"The main thing is to get cars off the roads, and use a potential opportunity with the harbour. It all depends on what the fare is, too. It's got to be convenient and it's got to be a reasonable cost for people who want to use it."

English, who lives in Bedford, says his own commute at 7:30 a.m. takes up to 35 minutes during the fall, winter and spring. He said he'd "definitely" use the ferry if council agrees to move forward.
http://www.hfxnews.ca/photos/stories/ferry.jpg

All this talk recently of a third bridge/tunnel is frustrating, why's there no talk of light rail?

There's always potential to put rail thru a tunnel or bridge, which would actually be a good system since there are usable rail lines along or abutting the waterfront on both sides of the harbour.. I just don't understand the point of a tunnel rather than a bridge.

Bedford ferry idea lauded

By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE City Hall Reporter

ADVERTISEMENT

Metro should move full steam ahead with a high-speed commuter ferry serving Bedford, a consultant’s study commiss-ioned by Halifax city hall says. Cost of the proposed project, which would include two 350-passenger vessels pegged at $8 million each, is $30 million.

"This includes (commuter) parking, supporting transit service, (ferry) terminal/site preparation and start-up expenses," says the study, obtained by The Chronicle Herald.

The report provides a cheaper alternative involving two 206-passenger ferries costing $5.5 million each.

"This (fast-ferry) project is viable," it says. "The market analysis showed a strong desire to use alternative transportation modes for commuting into the downtown core other than single-occupancy vehicles."

Mayor Peter Kelly said Saturday he has read the consultant’s report and personally agrees with its findings, but it left him with "some unanswered questions." For instance, he wants to know why the study ruled out smaller, more fuel-efficient ferries like the American vessel city officials brought to Halifax Harbour last year for a trial run.

Mr. Kelly, of Bedford, said the proposed fast-ferry service is something many area residents have been asking for.

"This (public) support was expressed by not only Bedford residents but also people in surrounding communities and developers," Mr. Kelly said. Asked if there is the political will on council to move the proposal forward, the mayor said: "The public is already ahead of where council has to get to."

He said regional council has known that a ferry service would be expensive, but also that such a plan can attract financial help from the province and Ottawa.

The report was prepared by TDV Global Inc., an Ottawa consulting firm. It’s to be presented to Halifax regional council Tuesday. Last year, the politicians approved $210,000 for the study, which was done by TDV’s Halifax office.

A recent municipal staff report attached to the consultant’s study recommends council approve the ferry scheme "in principle, subject to funding," and authorize HRM employees "to begin detailed work on the various aspects of the project."

In October, a $4.7-million ferry from Massachusetts was used for trial runs between Bedford and downtown Halifax. During a trip under pleasant conditions, the U.S. vessel, licensed to carry 150 passengers, took about 15 minutes to go from Convoy Quay on Bedford Basin to a spot near Metro Transit’s ferry terminal.

Though the American-built vessel is a tourist boat, it could easily be used as a commuter craft, ferry crew and HRM officials said last year. It’s wheelchair-accessible, has bicycle racks and, during a test drive, provided riders with a zippy jaunt to their destination. It is smaller, however – and cheaper – than both ferries noted in the consultant’s report.

TDV’s study also looked at wake wash results from the trial runs. From the deck of the ferry last fall the wake didn’t appear unusually large, but the study acknowledged "poor wake performance caused a number of harbour stakeholders to complain through the trial." It says, though, "wake wash . . . can be addressed through vessel hull design and establishment of an operating track on the harbour for the high-speed ferries."

Metro’s proposed commuter ferry service is part of the transportation component of the municipality’s 25-year regional plan. According to a planning document available on the city’s website, a variety of measures are to be taken to meet transit demands as the population increases.

It says these will include "expansion of the road network, improvements to Metro Transit’s service, the Bus Rapid Transit (MetroLink) system, . . . an active transportation plan and network (such as bicycle lanes) and increased use of the harbour with a high-speed ferry service."

A one-way fare for the proposed fast ferry would cost $5. The consultant’s study recommends HRM "raise fare prices as the cost of fuel increases."

Service could begin by the fall of 2007, if approved by regional council. Plans call for a Bedford ferry terminal to be built on land owned by the Waterfront Development Corp., a provincial Crown corporation. Another commuter ferry, serving Purcells Cove-area residents, is also being considered by council.

The consultant’s report also suggests a road shuttle service be set up downtown between the Metro Transit ferry terminal and universities situated in Halifax. "The route directions should be contrary to traffic patterns," it says.

Critics of the proposed fast-ferry service believe the plan is too rich for the city’s blood. Supporters see it as a way to get residents’ vehicles off the roads, reduce air pollution from car exhaust and take advantage of Halifax Harbour as a transportation corridor.

( mlightstone@herald.ca)

I saw an article recently in the herald that the bridge commission is consdiering building a third bridge or tunnel. I could see from woodside to the south end.
jim jones

All this talk recently of a third bridge/tunnel is frustrating, why's there no talk of light rail?

The reason of no light rail is that it is expensive for even a small system and the solution has to include cross harbour traffic. a tunnel from woodside at the end of the circumferancial highway to the south end would change and solve the traffic problem on the pennisula. Light Rail you would be looking at local nieghboorhoods in halifax proper and that is about it.

jim jones

A new bridge, or in particular a tunnel, would cost much much more than light rail. LRT would also probably receive federal and corporate (environmental) grants whereas a bridge is less likely to. There's probably also some way of installing tracks into one of the existing bridges.

The MacKay bridge cost $30M in 1970. I don't really know what that works out to in today's dollars, although a bridge to the South End would have to be much larger.

Why would a light rail system have to include cross-harbour traffic? Not every transportation project has to serve the whole city. Halifax's core is also very compact.. an initial line to Clayton Park could be as short as 8-10 km and would pass through well-populated areas. With newer diesel trains it wouldn't be terribly expensive.

A new bridge, or in particular a tunnel, would cost much much more than light rail. LRT would also probably receive federal and corporate (environmental) grants whereas a bridge is less likely to. There's probably also some way of installing tracks into one of the existing bridges.

Well putting a lrt system on either the mackay or macdonald bridges would be a major expense and might not be possibly from an engineering stand point.
As to "why does LRT have to have to serve all of metro" Well it doesn t have to serve all of metro but the major problem is cross harbour traffic not traffic to clayton park . Clayton park , Bedford and Sackville may be a concern but lets face you have more population on the dartmouth side with dartmouth, cole harbour , eastern passage and other places on the east side of the harbour. Big deal if you have traffic on the bedford highway . LKive with it halifax. LOL they certainly live it in LA, montreal , toronto and NYC among most of the americas.

I find it funny that LRT here seems to be the theme but people dont seem to realize or see what happens in many place s with these LRT systems . LRT is expensive, costing money for the equipment, track, right of ways, maintianance of both the track and the LRT cars. Then you have to build a huge maintain facility . Where in the pennisula do you propose to do that?

If you could put lrt across the bridges which is doubtful because of the grade I know a great place for a maintainance shed . Shannon park an abandoned military houseing complex. It would certainly be a better use then a commonwealth games or stadium that we cant afford either LOL.

A cross new cross harbour bridge or tunnel you can engineer or provide rightaway in the plans for future LRT if the city ever gets big enough to support a system . In the meanwhile you use it as a bus only lane. I doubt halifax will get big enough to justifiy a lrt system. The growth is not there at all.

jim jones.

The MacKay bridge cost $30M in 1970. I don't really know what that works out to in today's dollars, although a bridge to the South End would have to be much larger.

Why would a light rail system have to include cross-harbour traffic? Not every transportation project has to serve the whole city. Halifax's core is also very compact.. an initial line to Clayton Park could be as short as 8-10 km and would pass through well-populated areas. With newer diesel trains it wouldn't be terribly expensive.

Yes the mac kay bridge cost 30 million in 1970 but quess what it still costs today in interest charges as the principle was never paid LOL. No wonder the city is in a 280 million dollar debt.

jim jones.

Okay, so you agree with my claim, which is that a new bridge would be very expensive and perhaps no more extravagant than a light rail system.

The HRM does not carry the bridge debt, but nice try.

Okay, so you agree with my claim, which is that a new bridge would be very expensive and perhaps no more extravagant than a light rail system.

The HRM does not carry the bridge debt, but nice try.

I agree that a birdge or tunnel will be more expensive but it will also be more effective to solve the problem. Even a cross northwest arm bridge or tunnel would be more effective then LRT.

And sorry The Bridge will always carry a debt . They were financed by the swiss and will never be paid off as the interest payments are not even being met. It is part of the city and provinces debt load. The canso causeway was paid off and would make an annual profit of 55,000. Donald Cameron the former premier of the province lifted the tolls for the causeway much to the dismay of people in the strait who saw a dozen jobs go even though the tolls paid the salaries easily and provided a profit to the province.

The reason the bridge commission could not keep on top of interest payments and the canso causeway did . Canso causeway made of rock with very little maintainance costs and the toll was 1.50 . The mac donald bridge made of steel and their are many maintainance costs with a suspension bridge. Toll for much of the harbour bridges history 25 per car.

jim jones.

So what you're saying is that... even though the two bridges we already have are contributing to the municipal and provincial debt, and we can't even meet the interest payments, the smart thing to do is build ANOTHER bridge?

Or are you saying that we should build a causeway across the harbour, because that has very little maintainanace (sic) costs?

What I still don't get (and this is sort of directed at everyone) is, why a tunnel? What advantage would a tunnel have?

So what you're saying is that... even though the two bridges we already have are contributing to the municipal and provincial debt, and we can't even meet the interest payments, the smart thing to do is build ANOTHER bridge?

Or are you saying that we should build a causeway across the harbour, because that has very little maintainanace (sic) costs?

What I still don't get (and this is sort of directed at everyone) is, why a tunnel? What advantage would a tunnel have?

Well heres the thing if a bridge cost 100 million it would take care of all forms of traffic, Trucks, Buses, Cars and everything else with wheels. Now 100 million in lrt would probably not even get you off the pennisula. I may be wrong in the figures but basically what I am saying is dollar per dollar the solution has never been with mass transit in north america for a city of Halifax's size at this point . LRT would be costly and not as easy as you would think . LRT is just like the character Lyle Langley on the simpsons selling a monorail system to the people of springfield LOL.

Of course I am not saying build a causway across the harbour . The harbour is the sole asset the HRM has. A tunnel is going to be expensive but can solve the problem . LRT you might have it on the pennisula per dollar spent and that would be the extent of it. The advantage for a tunnel is that you could still have any shipping you want beyond post panamax for the foreseeable future and you could also put a future LRT track in the tunnel as well depending on the grade that was engineered. With 18 metres
of low tide clearance a tunnel is a concept that could certainly and provide a right of way for a future LRT if the city got that big.

BY the way I was in Halifax the other day and i notice that not one single traffic light was composed of LED's . About 80 percent are LEDs traffic lights in new glasgow. WHy is that ?? Behind the curve HRM LOL

Jim Jones

Actually I see them everywhere. you must not be going to the same places as I because I see more LED than Floodlight style myself.

Actually I see them everywhere. you must not be going to the same places as I because I see more LED than Floodlight style myself.

Not to be smart but I actually did not see one led traffic light on the pennisula at all . South Park street . Brunswick. Quinpool road. around the commons. Of course maybe we are a little more proactive here and we have much less to retrofit. there are still a very few lamp type traffic lights in new glasgow but the vast majority are LED. The HRM may only be doing it with completely new systems as opposed to new glasgow who has retrofitted even cobra head traffic light standards.
It isnt meant to be a poke at halifax I just found it strange. Could be the areas I was in .

jim jones

I would have thought you would need traffic in order to have traffic lights, and there isn't much of either in New Glasgow.

The bridge commission is paying off the debt. To say they aren't even covering the interest is utterly false. Read their financial statements.

Not to be smart but I actually did not see one led traffic light on the pennisula at all . South Park street . Brunswick. Quinpool road. around the commons. Of course maybe we are a little more proactive here and we have much less to retrofit. there are still a very few lamp type traffic lights in new glasgow but the vast majority are LED. The HRM may only be doing it with completely new systems as opposed to new glasgow who has retrofitted even cobra head traffic light standards.
It isnt meant to be a poke at halifax I just found it strange. Could be the areas I was in .

jim jones

Actually there are quite a few around. I've seen a lot being replaced in the last year.

Okay, so you agree with my claim, which is that a new bridge would be very expensive and perhaps no more extravagant than a light rail system.

The HRM does not carry the bridge debt, but nice try.

Both are expensive of course but what i see is the coverage that each option addresses. The span across the harbour is logical and cutting to the biggest problem . If it is a tunnel and you have a 5 lane for either buses only or a future LRt train then you have the ground work for LRT on both sides of the harbour.

This morning on Rick Howe the chair of the bridge commission said that the city is thinking a third crossing will not be needed for 25 years. Personally I say build it now and your costs will be less and the city will be more efficient thus grow further for economics. A Stadium, Aquatics centre or commownealth games will not grow an economy like good sound infrastructure getting the main service in and out of the city the operation of the port of halifax. Wtih the right design and grade of the tunnel who knows you might have the flow of container transport trucks running the other way against inbound traffic at 3 to 5 pm from fairview.

A friendly FYI for those who said the bridges are debt free. Even the chair of the Bridge commission acknowledged that they will never be out of debt.
In 1997 they borrowed about 75 million for the expansion of the mac donald bridge and their debt was over 120 million at that point. Saving were found converting the debt at that time from deucshmarcs to canadian dollars.
Today the Bridge commission is in about 62 million dollars worth of debt which is a great turn around financially for the crown corporation. At the time of the 1997 expansion they borrowed from 23 million for the 30 million dollar line of credit that province gives them and they also went shopping for a competitive bond rate to finance the expansion .
for 24 million annually in revenues the crown corporation spends 7 .5 million on interest, 5 million paying down the principle and about 4 million in maintainence. The rest is a continuencey fundand salaries.
If they were to raise the toll to a buck even for cash (which is not unreasonable) and 75 cents from 60 cents for mac pass users then they could probably pay off the debt . for reference the canso causeway was about 2 bucks to cross both ways and that was over 12 years ago with a causeway without the maintanence costs of two suspension bridges.

The symantics about whether the HRM carries the debt well agian 40 percent of the population is in metro and thus the taxpayers province wide pay for the debt not the users of the bridges.

jim jones

Personally I say build it now and your costs will be less and the city will be more efficient thus grow further for economics.


I agree. Build it now. :) Everyone here knows that most development takes place around great infrastructure. We need more road lanes in HRM. Adding the additional lane to the bridge now will not only save the Bridge Commission money (and us) but will bring new development to downtown Dartmouth where it’s needed.

I agree. Build it now. :) Everyone here knows that most development takes place around great infrastructure. We need more road lanes in HRM. Adding the additional lane to the bridge now will not only save the Bridge Commission money (and us) but will bring new development to downtown Dartmouth where it’s needed.

Actually the head of the bridge commission stated on rick howe that additional lanes on the two spans are not feasable from an engineering standpoint. The view was either a twin span beside the mackay bridge (that would be funny with the footings going where a proposed filed house for the commonwealth games would be ) or a span either by bridge or tunnel from woodside to the south end.
There have been many a high span that now exceeds the woodside to south end distance but I tunnel might be the best option.

jim jones.

A Tunnel really would be the best option, I mean we do have the worlds 2nd deepest natural harbour, and there is a bit of land that was set aside for something to connect to Halifax. That Joey Zatsman, clever man, if not smart enough to surround himself with clever people. But where would you have it come up on the Halifax side? I'd figure near the Westin? or would they keep it on a gradual grade, and have them exit near Fenwick? Crazy I know, try living with these thoughts...
~C

Metro rail dream off track: Councillors
CN line sparks fresh debate
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE Staff Reporter
ADVERTISEMENT



An old, unfulfilled dream several of Halifax’s municipal politicians have of getting commuter rail going in metro was conjured up at Tuesday’s regional council meeting but not all councillors are on board with the idea.

"I know we try to be all things to all people, but I don’t think that we should start operating a railway," said Coun. Linda Mosher (Purcells Cove-Armdale). She said the municipality should instead press ahead with its proposed high-speed ferry service for her district and Bedford, in order to help ease traffic woes.

The commuter rail issue was raised during a debate about spending $20,000 for a property appraisal of a Canadian National Railway freight line that CN intends to abandon due to decreasing railcar traffic.

Council agreed to the expense, which has been earmarked for a land assessment of an 8.5-kilometre spur line that extends from CN’s rail yard in Fairview to Lakeside Industrial Park. The railway indicated about a year ago it plans to drop the line, a Halifax Regional Municipality staff report says.

CN officials "have stated that their position is based on insufficient customer volume and no indication of future additional business," the report says. Municipal staff aren’t keen on converting the money-losing freight line to a commuter rail service and have suggested other uses for the land.

The property could be used as a trail to serve as "a critical link in the (city’s) active transportation network," the staff report says, or be used as a buffer for the Chain Lake watershed. It says it could also provide additional approach lanes at the busy intersection of Joseph Howe Drive and the ramp for Highway 102.

Much of council’s discussion wasn’t about the cost of the appraisal but the potential use of the rail line once it’s abandoned by CN.

"Some long-term benefits would be that we would have a viable commuter route to assist with traffic access to downtown, or for work or special events," said Coun. Mary Wile (Clayton Park West).

Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown) said she too supports the concept "and the glimmer of hope" of commuter rail in metro, an idea Mayor Peter Kelly has campaigned on in the past.

The city hall staff report shouldn’t have dismissed the continued operation of the spur line, Coun. Andrew Younger (East Dartmouth-The Lakes) told his colleagues. He said the closure of the line could result in increased truck traffic through metro.

"I do think that we have to make sure that this process very clearly includes the possibility of keeping that rail corridor there," he said.

But Ms. Mosher said taking over an economically unviable line would be folly.

"If (CN) can’t operate it at a profit," she said, "I don’t see the reason why we would."

•In other business, regional council approved the purchase of 10 vehicles for the city’s Access-A-Bus service for transit users with special needs. The buses, to cost about $874,000, will replace vehicles that had been in service an average of about five years.

•Also, council met in secret to settle claims filed against the municipality. One unnamed claimant is to get an $18,053 award for an undisclosed accident involving the city. Another $10,000 is to be paid to a claimant in an interim award. No details on either incident were released.

"If (CN) can’t operate it at a profit," she said, "I don’t see the reason why we would."

Oh, hell!

CN DOESN'T OPERATE IT AS A COMMUTER RAIL LINE!

Ahh, I hope they at least secure the land for future use.

Oh, hell!

CN DOESN'T OPERATE IT AS A COMMUTER RAIL LINE!

Ahh, I hope they at least secure the land for future use.

Thats exactly what I said out loud when i read that article this morning! I dont understand how just because it wasnt successful anymore as a freight line, that it will be unsuccessful as a commuter line. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Don't count on HRM city councillors to provide intelligent commentary.

I could see commuter rail working along the line to Bedford but not the one that goes to Lakeside.

For now they're probably best off just continuing with the high speed ferry plans.

This thread seems to be dying... I may have arrived too late to join in on all the fun!

Someone on an earlier page said Brunswick Street may be a good idea. I would second this, as it is a wide street with wide sidewalks, plenty of room in my opinion for a rail line. Possibly some sort of downtown loop involving Queen St, Sackville, Brunswick, Cogswell, Hollis and back onto the existing rail line. Brunswick seems wide enough to have a line running north-bound, and Hollis could be used south-bound in a pinch. Start with something simple like that, then when it gets popular begin expanding north along Gottingen and slide over to hook up with the existing rail line near the MacKay Bridge. I don't see this LRT system expanding to the point of running rail along Robie or Quinpool, two streets which seem near impossible to me to work a train into during rush hour, although I will admit it would be nice to see rail running along Spring Garden or North Street once again... but it just isn't going to happen.

As for tunnels under the city, or raised rail lines.. yeah right. You've all seen how HRM city council works. I think we should abandon all thoughts of ever seeing a rail line above or below ground level.

This thread seems to be dying... I may have arrived too late to join in on all the fun!

Someone on an earlier page said Brunswick Street may be a good idea. I would second this, as it is a wide street with wide sidewalks, plenty of room in my opinion for a rail line. Possibly some sort of downtown loop involving Queen St, Sackville, Brunswick, Cogswell, Hollis and back onto the existing rail line. Brunswick seems wide enough to have a line running north-bound, and Hollis could be used south-bound in a pinch. Start with something simple like that, then when it gets popular begin expanding north along Gottingen and slide over to hook up with the existing rail line near the MacKay Bridge. I don't see this LRT system expanding to the point of running rail along Robie or Quinpool, two streets which seem near impossible to me to work a train into during rush hour, although I will admit it would be nice to see rail running along Spring Garden or North Street once again... but it just isn't going to happen.

As for tunnels under the city, or raised rail lines.. yeah right. You've all seen how HRM city council works. I think we should abandon all thoughts of ever seeing a rail line above or below ground level.

Hfx_Chris! I know you from Wikipedia :).

well, what about a new tram system...? We had one before, what would it take to have one?

Hfx_Chris! I know you from Wikipedia :).
I get around ;)
You can probably find my nose in anything related to public transit in HRM.


well, what about a new tram system...? We had one before, what would it take to have one?
A lot more than HRM would be willing to commit to. You'd have to purchase a whole fleet of tram cars, tear up streets to add rail lines and overhead lines for power... it would cost a lot less to keep the status quo and continue purchasing diesel buses.
A simple LRT system with limited access to downtown (Brunswick or Hollis Streets?) using existing CN lines just makes sense.. use diesel buses to take people from there to the rest of the city.
Now if only we could persuade council to agree :D

true, very true, but what you've proposed is only a short term solution. One that could lead to a stronger longterm fix. (Fix being a loose term, you can't completely 'fix' mass transit, just make the best of a constant tough situation) With regular rail into southend, youy could do the same for the Northend. A thought would be to conntect the two ends, by build concrete rail boxes a la the Big Dig, float them to the waterfront limit, and run them to the Irving yard. An elevated rail system would be another choice to connect them. I don't know, more Rapid bus routes, that's obvious, and more ferries is what we need right now, half of that is happening to the degree we needed at Amalgamation. Shoot if only we had started the process in 96, and merged in 2000. Now... well, we are what we are now, and as long as we don't let another Clayton Park happen, I think it's going to be okay.

Indeed, I'm a big bus fanatic, and even I think it would be nice to see rail in Halifax again. I just doubt it would ever happen.
Knowing our city council, if an LRT system was ever approved, it would probably go no further into the city than the VIA rail station. Not terribly useful for anyone working in the buildings further north. We've seen how difficult it can be for pretty much any major construction work to pass through council and get the green light..

In my ideal world, they should start small, with a line going as far north as Scotia Square, then someday continue and connect back with the line along the Bedford basin.

I'm intrigued by your suggestion of running the line along the waterfront; would certainly be beneficial to a lot of dockyard employees.

I think it might be good to have one or two trolly bus lines. I was reading the thread about the ones in Van, and they seem very appealing - especially their lack of air and noise polution. We could start by electrifying #1 and FRED, and then eventually a few more of the higher ridership routes. Not as good as LRT mind u, but more realisitc.

Indeed, I'm a big bus fanatic, and even I think it would be nice to see rail in Halifax again. I just doubt it would ever happen.
Knowing our city council, if an LRT system was ever approved, it would probably go no further into the city than the VIA rail station. Not terribly useful for anyone working in the buildings further north. We've seen how difficult it can be for pretty much any major construction work to pass through council and get the green light..

In my ideal world, they should start small, with a line going as far north as Scotia Square, then someday continue and connect back with the line along the Bedford basin.

I'm intrigued by your suggestion of running the line along the waterfront; would certainly be beneficial to a lot of dockyard employees.

Surely people working in Purdy's Wharf could walk two kilometres from the train station. Though, another option could be to build the terminal somewhere where the Cogswell st exchange is now, and run the line through the dockyards, assuming that could be done in some way to the navy's liking (It'd probably be considered a security issue or something). There's plenty of room to have it run parallel to Barrington Street.

Surely people working in Purdy's Wharf could walk two kilometres from the train station.

No, they wouldn't. Be realistic. Half the time in this town it is either raining, snowing, blowing, freezing cold, or some combination of the above. To expect people to walk that distance on a regular basis guarantees failure. Besides, you are ignoring the people who for reasons of disability or otherwise cannot walk that distance.

Though, another option could be to build the terminal somewhere where the Cogswell st exchange is now, and run the line through the dockyards, assuming that could be done in some way to the navy's liking (It'd probably be considered a security issue or something). There's plenty of room to have it run parallel to Barrington Street.

My suggestion from earlier.

The problem with a 2 km walk is that it's not just a 2 km walk, it's a walk or drive to the train station, a wait for the train, 30 minute train trip, then a 15-20 minute walk, repeated twice a day. A 15 minute walk adds 30 minutes onto commute and seriously affects the competitiveness of the service.

One of the original ideas was to extend the rail line along Hollis right into the core, which would make the train very attractive and wouldn't cost that much.

I agree that rail is unlikely to happen with the current crop of politicians but they won't be around forever. In general terms rail transit is not an outlandish idea.

Personally I don't think the old commuter rail idea is that great. The route is not very direct, there are all kinds of practical problems that up until now have been unresolvable, it does nothing for people travelling around the core, and it conflicts with plans to offer ferry service to Bedford.

I think the best model is to build LRT around the core (maybe out to Clayton Park) and then offer services like MetroLink and ferries into a central terminal. That kind of system would make it very easy for a person to commute in to work at any of a number of different locations on the peninsula (downtown, universities, hospitals, dockyards, etc.).

Surely people working in Purdy's Wharf could walk two kilometres from the train station.
You would think so, but not likely. You've got to have the service very convenient for the folks who are going to be using it, and the majority are office workers. If the train leaves them off at the VIA station, and they work near Scotia Square, they're probably going to just say to hell with it and continue using existing (or future) MetroLink bus routes, since it drops them off in front of their office. The idea is to make the rail system more appealing, and having it inconveniently located (or requiring extra transfers into downtown) won't accomplish that.
I do however like your idea of having it run north-bound up Barrington, along side of the dockyard land, but you're right the navy would probably have a fit about that.

No, they wouldn't. Be realistic. Half the time in this town it is either raining, snowing, blowing, freezing cold, or some combination of the above. :hahaha:
To expect people to walk that distance on a regular basis guarantees failure. Besides, you are ignoring the people who for reasons of disability or otherwise cannot walk that distance.
I'd love to see such a line run underground from VIA to the SSq area, but that would be expensive enough that I likely won't see it in my life time. But for the peninsula to densify and have a smallish subway line would be the ultimate dream.

Halifax/Bedford Fast Ferry Project Update
Monday, February 26, 2007


HRM has recently completed the Halifax/Bedford Fast Ferry Cultivation Study. The study included a market analysis, economic analysis, wake-wash assessment, and stakeholder consultations. The study recommends the design and construction of two high-speed vessels to operate the service.

Halifax Regional Council has approved the project in principle subject to funding.

Staff is continuing with the project and are presently carrying out consultations with other harbour stakeholders to lay out operating criteria.

That's good to hear! High-speed ferry may not be my favourite idea, but at least it's something in the right direction. I welcome any new public transit related development in HRM.
I just hope council doesn't defer their final decision until sometime next decade.

Plan for it, and they will come
Fast ferries get boost as city to pay $200k for designs

Post a comment
STÉPHANE MASSINON
The Daily News

CITY HALL - Draw up the plans for some new fast ferries, says a Halifax regional councillor, and then the money could follow.

During the second day of the city budget debates, Bedford Coun. Gary Martin suggested the city should stop waiting for the province and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to get onboard.

So, councillors earmarked $200,000 yesterday to pay for design plans on the boats.

"What I hope to accomplish is once the federal and provincial governments see that we're serious about moving on this issue, that they will come and be our partners on this," Martin said in an interview.

"Somebody has to move first. It's been stagnant for a bit and I thought that this motion might get it rolling."

Martin said citizens are writing and calling frequently asking for updates on the status of the fast ferry.

A trial run was done in October 2005, but little progress has been made on it since, he said.

"The community was excited, the politicians were excited, so I don't know why it stopped," Martin said.

He added that the Commonwealth Games could have helped bring the fast ferries to life.

'Very appealing'

"To go from one area, Bedford, and going to Halifax in 15 minutes is very appealing to a lot of people,' Martin said.

The first phase of the fast-ferry project, known as HarbourLink, would see two catamarans, operating at 35 knots, bringing up to 350 passengers on the larger ship to different parts of the municipality.

It would stop at a new terminal in Bedford with more possible terminals in places such as Purcells Cove or Shannon Park.

Its projected price tag was $30 million.

Transportation manager Dave McCusker said the city has tried to get the province and the federal government interested in paying for parts of the project.

To date, no luck.

Yesterday, he was asked if he thought drawing up plans for the ships would help the city get more money.

"I believe it would," McCusker said.

"I think that's the next step that we need to get our teeth into is to actually have a design done."

Mayor Peter Kelly, a longtime advocate of the project, said the province and Ottawa are well aware that Halifax is looking for the fast ferries to come to life.

No response

"They know we have the interest, but to date we have had no official response to say (where) the money will come from," Kelly said.

Council's decision yesterday means that those plans will be placed on a "wish list" of sorts that's compiled during the budget process.

Staff will come back with recommendations, possibly as early as next week, about what is feasible.

Traffic panic not warranted: city staff 1
Post a comment | View comments (1)
RACHEL BOOMER
The Daily News

CITY HALL - Could Toronto-style eight-lane highways one day dump reams of traffic onto Bayers Road and into Burnside, clogging roads and destroying neighbourhoods?

That's what had some Halifax regional councillors so worried last night that they debated a $95,200 traffic study for well over an hour and a half.

Some argued that by signing onto a provincial study of future traffic patterns leading from Highways 102 and 107, they'd be clearing the way for Bayers Road and Connaught Avenue to become near-highways themselves.

But city staffers argued the report will likely prove the opposite - that the peninsula can't support traffic from a wider highway, or wider roads coming from it.

"I think it will demonstrate quite clearly that the peninsula is only capable of handling the four-lane highway that Highway 102 is now," regional transportation planning manager David McCusker said.

Connaught-Quinpool Coun. Sheila Fougere suggested the study may suggest widening Bayers Road to six lanes between the end of Highway 102 and Connaught Avenue, while adding more lanes to Connaught and Windsor. She said the study, also slated to include whether the city and province should build a connector from Sackville to Burnside, could lead to changes that would encourage single-passenger vehicles and decrease reliance on transit.

At worst, she said, it'll be $95,200 wasted on another traffic study that will be ignored for decades.

"I have a bookshelf full of traffic studies in my office," Fougere said.

The province will pay $180,000 for its share of the study.

McCusker, and other staffers, warned that if the city didn't agree to spend the money, the province would go ahead with the study anyway - and likely wouldn't consider city input.

Other councillors from Bedford, Burnside and Dartmouth argued commuters need a speedier route to work, and that studying traffic patterns on those highways wouldn't commit the city to anything.

Halifax regional council routinely approves spending more than double this amount in minutes, without batting an eyelash. But South End Coun. Sue Uteck said the city should have a vote on transportation issues that concern it without having to spend the $95,200.

In the end, council agreed to pay for the study.

But don't gear up for a speedier commute - or a protest rally - just yet.

Lower Sackville Coun. Bob Harvey said he's already been to a launch for the Burnside connector highway.

"It was 17 years ago, and I had just been on council six months," said the veteran politician.

"Toronto-style" highways? Why does anything vaguely "big-city" have to be "Toronto-style"? It's terrific to know that most of the people debating this stuff have zero experience in traffic and transportation affairs. Besides, the 111 is 6-10 lanes, is it not? (I try to stay away from the hellhole that is Westphal).

More than anything, I'd like to see light rail in Halifax; it should be put ahead of everything else, IMO. The ferries and BRT are a good start, but they serve fewer people than a LRT system would, and less efficiently. I hate park-n-ride systems.

http://www.lightrailuk.com/gifs/affordable_light_rail.jpg

Councillors like Fougere need to get their heads out of the sand and realize that Halifax traffic remains a relic of the 1950s. Our road system is a bad joke and desperately needs to be upgraded. The phobia some councillors have about doing anything with our roads to accommodate growth is absurd. People are not going to bicycle in to the city from the suburbs and we need roads better than those built in the 1950s to handle the volume. Obstructionists to progress like Fougere need to get out of the way.

People are not going to bicycle in to the city from the suburbs and we need roads better than those built in the 1950s to handle the volume.
This is what public transit is for.
I would much rather see new projects in public transit than widening streets.

we need roads better than those built in the 1950s to handle the volume. Obstructionists to progress like Fougere need to get out of the way.

Rapid mass transit such as light rail is the way to go. It is much more highly regarded than the buses, thus better ridership. Urban sprawl is no good

"Toronto-style" highways? Why does anything vaguely "big-city" have to be "Toronto-style"? It's terrific to know that most of the people debating this stuff have zero experience in traffic and transportation affairs. Besides, the 111 is 6-10 lanes, is it not? (I try to stay away from the hellhole that is Westphal).

More than anything, I'd like to see light rail in Halifax; it should be put ahead of everything else, IMO. The ferries and BRT are a good start, but they serve fewer people than a LRT system would, and less efficiently. I hate park-n-ride systems.

http://www.lightrailuk.com/gifs/affordable_light_rail.jpg

this pic is awesome.. is it in UK?
how many cities in Canada has LTR besides Vancouver and TO?

this pic is awesome.. is it in UK?
how many cities in Canada has LTR besides Vancouver and TO?

I think so, I got it from this website. (http://www.lightrailuk.com/)

Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton also have light rail systems, and I think Montreal has one planned (in addition to their subway).

Edit: I guess Mississauga has one too if you count the one at the Toronto airport ;). Also, crossroad, did you ever end up moving to Halifax :D?

Rapid mass transit such as light rail is the way to go. It is much more highly regarded than the buses, thus better ridership. Urban sprawl is no good

That's a debatable planning theory question, but it is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact of the matter is that suburban sprawl not only exists, but is rapidly growing and will continue to do so, and we cannot accommodate the traffic it generates. While LRT and fast ferries may make a small dent in the volumes for those point to point commuters for whom it will make sense, those volumes are ultimately very small. The road system remains an obsolete relic and is a bad joke. Look at absurdities like the Armdale Rotary/Chebucto Rd., the Bedford Hwy/Windsor St Exchange, the MacDonald Bridge/North St., and the 102/Bayers Rd corridors. These are all antiquated arteries that need major upgrades to handle our growth. While HRM participation in the traffic study with the province is a good small step, it appears according to press reports that our mayor and Dave McCusker, the burned-out head of traffic planning, have already defeated its usefulness by proclaiming that the 102 will not be expanded. Those are ridiculous statements and are completely reckless and unfounded.

Face it, we’re slaves to our cars
HRM residents more concerned about commute than climate
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE Staff Reporter
ADVERTISEMENT



Suburban living in 21st-century Canada means our enduring love affair with the automobile has, in many cases, evolved into an unhealthy relationship that most scientists agree is harming this planet.

According to the Ecology Action Centre in Halifax, personal transportation accounts for half the average Canadian’s greenhouse gas emissions. But each kilometre not driven alone in a vehicle, the environmental group says, reduces the amount of carbon dioxide that’s discharged into the atmosphere by almost one-quarter of a kilogram and lessens the amount of fumes and particulate matter in the air.

This is sobering information for residents of Halifax Regional Municipality’s bedroom communities, municipal traffic managers, public transit officials and urban planners. By any measure, we’re slaves to our cars, and the convenience of riding behind the wheel overrides any desire to help combat global warming by joining a car pool, taking the bus or ferry to work, or, if feasible, walking or using a bicycle.

In the Bedford and Sackville areas, home to about 58,000 people, scores of commuters race along the Bedford Highway or Highway 102 every day to get to work or school in Halifax. It’s not unusual to see single occupants in suburbanites’ cars, minivans, sport utility vehicles or pickup trucks.

Relatively new neighbourhoods, such as the Royale Hemlocks subdivision in Bedford, have sprouted lots of duplexes, condominiums, townhouses, single-family homes and executive-style houses. Householders in almost all those dwellings, some of which have large two-car garages, own road-clogging vehicles. Most residents use them during the daily commute to their destination of choice.

Therefore, there’s additional pressure on regional rush-hour routes that the city’s traffic management gurus must address. As for the future, many more vehicles heading to Halifax, and back, are in the cards.

Bedford West, a proposed subdivision to be built over the next four decades and potentially housing thousands of people, will put more commuters’ cars on the roads when residential areas are finally built.

The 520-hectare development is to be situated in what is now a wooded parcel of land on the west side of the Bicentennial Highway near Hammonds Plains and Kearney Lake roads.

According to Statistics Canada’s 2001 census, the number of residents from the Bedford, Sackville and Hammonds Plains districts who commute daily to peninsular Halifax totals about 8,260. While hardly the horrendous commuter crush that descends upon Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver every day, Bedford residents would nevertheless like to see traffic management improvements in their area.

"The Bedford Highway is becoming more and more congested in both directions during the day. Traffic should be diverted from the Bedford Highway as much as possible," said one participant in HRM’s online discussion forum about the future of the community.

For those without vehicles, or supporters of public transit, Metro Transit has six bus routes (including a bus rapid transit line) serving the Bedford and Sackville areas.

Coun. Steve Adams represents the Spryfield and Herring Cove districts but lives in Bedford near Moirs Mill Road. He’s noticed the Bedford Highway has become progressively busier but said the drive from his home to Halifax city hall remains a manageable 15 to 20 minutes.

City traffic manager Dave McCusker said a couple of things could help steer householders in Mr. Adams’s neck of the woods away from their cars, but commuter rail — something Mayor Peter Kelly has campaigned for in the past — won’t likely be one of them.

"Even taking the issue of track ownership out," Mr. McCusker said, referring to CN Rail, "the economics just didn’t make sense at all. The cost to bring (commuter train) seats into the downtown was quite high (and) the trip times are not very fast."

But he said the Bedford and Sackville districts could benefit from an expanded MetroLink system — a program that would provide more bus rapid transit to those suburban communities — and city hall’s proposed fast ferry service. Halifax regional council is considering a $30-million commuter ferry system serving Bedford and its environs but no decision has been made.

In the meantime, Mr. McCusker said, old habits die hard. In Bedford, that means people living in neighbourhoods that have been developed off the Bedford Highway probably won’t be seeking any roads less travelled.

"Most of them do come down to the Bedford Highway," he acknowledged.

Mr. Adams, first elected in 1991, thinks the commuter rail idea is "going nowhere fast" and isn’t buoyed by the notion of a commuter ferry for the neighbourhood in which he’s lived for about two years.

What he wants, he said, is inaugural Metro Transit bus service for outlying areas he represents on council.






I agree that refusing to widen the 102 is a strange way to go about things, especially it was obviously designed originally to have 3 lanes in each direction... most of the overpasses are a full lane wider than the actual expressway and there are stretches (near the Kearney Lake Rd exit for example) where land has been cleared for additional lanes. Where the cars would go once they get off the 102, though, is a different question altogether.

What would be the cost for two tram lines downtown?

as far as a lrt and mass transit in the HRM they should look at what Goa India has . They have this system call SKYBUS. it is like a monorail that is slung under a elevation raceway. the cost is about one fifth of LRT and it travels above an existing road bed at a level that large trucks can pass under.

I saw the system on discovery channels daily planet show. The big advantage I see for the HRM is a SKYBUS system could use existing right of ways and also pass all traffic even thru stop lights with the lights having to be changed .
The ridership would probably be very good with the speed that this system can get people home

That is a sure fire way to advertise a huge advantage of getting to and from work quicker then LRT. You also dont have the problems of halifax's steep grades in some sections of the city with SKYBUS.

That's a debatable planning theory question, but it is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact of the matter is that suburban sprawl not only exists, but is rapidly growing and will continue to do so, and we cannot accommodate the traffic it generates. While LRT and fast ferries may make a small dent in the volumes for those point to point commuters for whom it will make sense, those volumes are ultimately very small. The road system remains an obsolete relic and is a bad joke. Look at absurdities like the Armdale Rotary/Chebucto Rd., the Bedford Hwy/Windsor St Exchange, the MacDonald Bridge/North St., and the 102/Bayers Rd corridors. These are all antiquated arteries that need major upgrades to handle our growth. While HRM participation in the traffic study with the province is a good small step, it appears according to press reports that our mayor and Dave McCusker, the burned-out head of traffic planning, have already defeated its usefulness by proclaiming that the 102 will not be expanded. Those are ridiculous statements and are completely reckless and unfounded.

Transit volumes are not necessarily low. There are relatively small LRT systems that handle hundreds of thousands of passengers a day. Major routes in the HRM only handle tens of thousands of vehicles. Similarly, plenty of large cities (such as Toronto) carry similar numbers of people along relatively limited subway lines as they do on very large highways. A half decent LRT system could probably attract enough riders to be roughly equivalent to or greater than the 102 in terms of the amount of traffic that it handles (and the 102 is four lanes). Rail transit has the virtue of being able to accommodate a very large number of commuters in a very small right of way.

The other benefit of rail is that it removes buses from nearby arterial roads.

I agree that the roads need work but I don't think that building a serious transit system in Halifax is some kind of pie-in-the-sky idea. I think it's the best option for Halifax/Clayton Park/Bedford given the densities and the amount of land available (and in Halifax that's often not even just a question of expropriation since the terrain can be difficult).

as far as a lrt and mass transit in the HRM they should look at what Goa India has . They have this system call SKYBUS. it is like a monorail that is slung under a elevation raceway. the cost is about one fifth of LRT and it travels above an existing road bed at a level that large trucks can pass under.

I saw the system on discovery channels daily planet show. The big advantage I see for the HRM is a SKYBUS system could use existing right of ways and also pass all traffic even thru stop lights with the lights having to be changed .
The ridership would probably be very good with the speed that this system can get people home

That is a sure fire way to advertise a huge advantage of getting to and from work quicker then LRT. You also dont have the problems of halifax's steep grades in some sections of the city with SKYBUS.

SkyBus is hideous. It's elevated guideway would shadow everything in its path, and it's guideway is even thicker than SkyTrain here in Vancouver. The Halifax NIMBY's would never have it.....just look at the process of approving those vase-like towers.

I really question their claim of "one-fifth the cost of LRT" with so much concrete and steel needed for the guideway, and this being a technology only 2 cities have tried (India and some other city in Europe i can't remember). For example, here in Vancouver, SkyTrain elevated technology is 30-40% more expensive than ground-base LRT.

More importantly, it's not a proven technology unlike LRT which has been used by thousands of cities around the world ever since the first streetcar was born way way back in time. If something goes wrong, Halifax could be headed for a boondoggle.



SkyBus
http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/26/images/2004092604560101.jpg
PANAJI, SEPT. 25. One person was killed and three were injured when the Konkan Railway Corporation's Sky Bus Metro coaches hit the piers of the track this evening during a trial run at the Margao Railway Station in Goa, 40 km from here.

http://www.subways.net/india/skybus3.jpg



Look at the Bombardier built and designed Las Vegas monorail line:

"During testing and commissioning, the monorail suffered several malfunctions that delayed the start of passenger service for almost a year. The most severe of these problems related to parts falling from the monorail to the ground under the tracks.

On September 8, 2004, more problems with falling parts led to the closing of the monorail for nearly four months. It reopened on December 24, 2004. A number of repairs were made to the monorail cars during this shutdown. Each time the monorail system requires major engineering changes, it must undergo a lengthy "commissioning" process to confirm the effectiveness and safety of the repairs. The local press reported that each day the monorail was down cost the system approximately $85,000, and that over $8.3 million was lost as a result of this one shutdown." (Wikipedia)




Go with LRT, it's simple to operate and if designed properly could blend into the fabric of the community. That SkyBus would provide no aesthetics for Halifax.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Combino_VAG_auf_Rasengleis.jpg/748px-Combino_VAG_auf_Rasengleis.jpg
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/Jaxom92/Transit/NewMaxCar.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/place_versailles1.jpg

The main problem with at-grade LRT is that it still has to deal with intersections.

Construction costs in India are very different from North America.

The main problem with at-grade LRT is that it still has to deal with intersections.

Construction costs in India are very different from North America.

Precisely, construction costs are very different.

Regarding LRT, give the trains full traffic signal priority at intersections and the problem is solved....the Calgary way of building LRT.

I don't quite understand the issue with intersections... it would work like everything else at an intersection: when the light turns red, you stop, when the light turns green, you go.
When the light turns yellow, you gun it. Oh, and for buses, the first 2-3 seconds of the red phase are optional. ;)

I don't quite understand the issue with intersections... it would work like everything else at an intersection: when the light turns red, you stop, when the light turns green, you go.
When the light turns yellow, you gun it. Oh, and for buses, the first 2-3 seconds of the red phase are optional. ;)

If a bus has to stop at a traffic intersection for a red light, it slows a bus down thus it isn't exactly bus "rapid" transit. The faster a ride is, the more passengers it will attract.

You're not suggesting we allow buses right of way during an intersection, during a red light?
I dunno, doesn't exactly sound safe to me..

The Buses already have right-of-way at the intersections. The problem is most people don't know, or don't care. Look at what happened when that Link bus smoked that guy when he tried to take the right of way, he attempted to take Metro transit to court, and had his case thrown out, because Buses have the right of way.

You're not suggesting we allow buses right of way during an intersection, during a red light?
I dunno, doesn't exactly sound safe to me..

o_O *sigh* of course not.

traffic signal priority means the bus driver can delay red lights until his bus crosses the intersection. it's common around the world, especially in London, and we've already adopted it here on several routes in Vancouver.

Indeed, we've got it in a few locations here in Halifax.
My apologies for being a dick :P

That kind of signalling has been used on the Dartmouth BRT routes (I don't really know what traffic is like in Dartmouth at rush hour) and has cut off some time but it is a bandaid type solution that only helps for intersections that are not being fully used in all directions.

The Portland Street/Woodlawn Road intersection is a very busy intersection, both during rush hour and between. The priority light works very well at that intersection.

City too small for commuter trains to work: HRM official 4
CITY HALL Metro needs to hit one million people

Post a comment | View comments (4) | View latest comment
STÉPHANE MASSINON
The Daily News

For now, it's a dream - and not a new one, mind you. But still, the idea is intriguing.

A commuter rail line, combining both the environmental do-goodness of getting cars off the road and the romance of train travel, has some municipal politicians again wishfully thinking it might be feasible.

A debate at Halifax regional council last Tuesday on what to do with some CN rail lines re-ignited hope in the dreamers who envision a commuter rail line carrying people from the suburbs - Tantallon or Bedford-Sackville - to downtown Halifax's Via station.

With CN abandoning the Chester spur line, a freight line running from Bayers Lake Business Park to downtown, Clayton Park West Coun. Mary Wile said it's a good way to get moving on commuter rail.

In an interview, Wile said her fast-growing district needs ways to get people moving. The Chester spur line presents an opportunity for commuter rail.

"Yeah. Many people feel that," Wile said.

But the chances of that particular line becoming commuter rail are slim. HRM's transportation manager, Dave McCusker, said it wouldn't be used by the public.

Slow speed

With a 24-kilometre-per-hour speed limit, lines designed for freight traffic and no places to stop along the way, it doesn't make much sense, he said.

"Riding on trains is nice, and a lot of people do it, but that's when they get a real time-saving advantage," McCusker said.

"For us, the best we can do is replicate a bus trip, and nobody's going to get on a train to take the same time getting to where they need to go as they could on a bus, which is far, far longer than it would take you to drive."

If not that line, could commuter rail happen elsewhere?

Mayor Peter Kelly has long been an advocate of commuter rail.

"I know there's potential at some point in time, whether it's on the Dartmouth side of the harbour feeding into the ferry operations, or looking at other opportunities in going from the outskirts of HRM in terms of other communities coming here to work," Kelly said.

He's been told that in coming years, HRM could have to make room for an additional 10,000 downtown workers.

While he likes the idea of commuter rail, he said it's important not to hurt the container port business, which is trying to double its volume.

McCusker said Halifax's population is too small to support commuter rail, and the money would be better spent on the proposed Bedford fast-ferry service.

When Halifax's population gets to the right number - he figures one million - there is one line that is feasible.

"The only one that has any potential is really the main line that goes from Bedford, through Rockingham and to downtown," McCusker said.

Dartmouth waterfront

"There's one along the Dartmouth waterfront as well. It's nice because it goes through downtown Dartmouth and goes by some other potential destinations. But it's the same thing, it's a freight line that's designed for low-speed freight traffic."

Saying there are many advantages to taking cars off the road, Bedford Coun. Gary Martin said the issue comes down to heeding public demand.

"If we get a demand, then, hey, let's pursue it with CN and see what they tell us," Martin said.

For now the Bedford Ferry is a good project, but it is kind of ridiculous to say that the city can't support rail until it hits one million inhabitants. There was a rail system here in the 1860s when the city had about 50,000 people. Plenty of cities around the world with fewer than one million people have rail transit.

Part of the problem is that when it comes to transportation investment the city wants to do everything on the cheap. As I have mentioned in other threads, in Ontario they have proposed a $17B transit plan paid mostly by the province. If this were adjusted for Halifax's population relative to Toronto's we would be talking about $1.2B. The Bedford ferry project is something like $10M, and BRT was something like $13M. The HRM's budget is on the order of $600M per year.

Too many politicians here have a small town mentality.

When Halifax's population gets to the right number - he figures one million - there is one line that is feasible.
Nonsense.

Map of the Halifax street rail system circa 1866-67:
http://www.birney-trolley.org/images/Canadian_Railroad_Historical_Association_Bulletin_17_Montreal_April_15_1954.JPG

There were lines along Upper/Lower Water, Barrington, Hollis, and Spring Garden. The Northern end of the system connected to a rail line that ran along the Northern end of the peninsula and then out along the Bedford Basin (that stretch is still there).

Here is the original Intercolonial station at North Street with attached hotel. Unfortunately, it was destroyed in the explosion:
http://www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625/icrnorthstn2.jpg


The other problem with this discussion is that they are assuming that rail transit must be commuter rail and that a commuter rail here would be comparable to systems in Montreal or Toronto (e.g. GoTrain).

Map of the Halifax street rail system circa 1866-67:
http://www.birney-trolley.org/images/Canadian_Railroad_Historical_Association_Bulletin_17_Montreal_April_15_1954.JPG

Just a point of clarification, the Birney Saftey Car pictured at the bottom of that advertisement was NOT running in the 1860's street railroad system. The Birney trams cars ran in Halifax from 1923 - 1949.

Yes. The streetcar system created in 1866 was horse-drawn, while the regular trains were powered by coal. Electricity didn't come into use on a large scale until the 1880s/90s.

It's a little depressing to think of what Halifax is like today given the fact that back in the 19th century it was very much an early adopter of new technologies.

Bedford West, a proposed subdivision to be built over the next four decades and potentially housing thousands of people, will put more commuters’ cars on the roads when residential areas are finally built.
The last thing we should be doing is clearing more virgin land for residential development. There's PLENTY of existing opportunity for development in greater Hfx already, in the form of both vacant space and space that is being wasted for things like parking lots. The idea that we actually need new land is ridiculous.