Rail-based Transit Discussion

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder how resistant CN is to service along different portions of the line. There's the southern vs. northern option but there could also be a shorter urban service rather than suburban-oriented commuter rail. It could go from downtown north and then loop around to Mumford and maybe on to the south end. It would have transit connections at Mumford and downtown (bus and ferry).

The biggest downside of these lines aside from issues with CN is that because they run by the water they have less development nearby. However, I am not sure this is as true of the northern alignment with downtown and the ferry, the military, and the shipyard.

In truth I think that could be a feasible and lower-cost alternative. You could use parts of the abandoned ROW where possible plus existing/modified streets as required to run some sort of BRT or non-rail streetcar or trolley service in a loop around the peninsula or in some other N-S or E-W configuration as well. For the old downtown core you could designate Water St to be vehicle-free except for the trolley service along with bikes, and rid Hollis of the bike lane which has never been successful.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by ScovaNotian

There might be enough room left for a parkade. Compared with the cost of rail it wouldn't even be a major cost factor.

The RCN will never build a parkade as its a prime target to crush personnel should a nefarious type have the urge.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

The RCN will never build a parkade as its a prime target to crush personnel should a nefarious type have the urge.

Or at least their empty vehicles.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Or at least their empty vehicles.

The Force protection scenarios always assume an 8:00 AM or so targeted time.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It could be done. It would require dedication, commitment, visionary planning and a whole lot of money, but it could be done.

Sadly, I see little of any of the above in HRM these days. The city is being led by peons and mental midgets.

Was thinking as I read this Not really, no way and not unless there is a new 100% federal funded program.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

The Force protection scenarios always assume an 8:00 AM or so targeted time.

Yet another reason to build a subway (the deeper the better).

[ns_kid]

The idea that Danielle Smith's Conservatives might prioritize public transport alternatives seems surprising to many, but the Alberta government announced its "Rail Passenger Master Plan" earlier this week.

To be clear, all the premier committed to was a $9 million study, due to be completed by the middle of next year. (It won't be the first one.) But the government's vision is an ambitious 15-year delivery plan that could include:

• a high-speed (or higher-speed) rail link between Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton (there hasn't been a passenger train between these cities since VIA left the route in 1985);
• Calgary-Banff and Edmonton-Jasper rail links;
• commuter rail linking the downtown LRTs with the Calgary and Edmonton suburbs and airports.

The government proposes to set up a provincial Crown corporation to oversee it all, similar to Ontario's MetroLink.

Three years ago a couple of credible partners, the developer Ellis-Don and engineering firm AECOM, proposed a high-speed rail link between Calgary and Edmonton but it doesn't seem to have gone far. And two years ago a Banff resort owner, Liricon, proposed a Calgary-Banff rail service.

The newly green Smith was quoted as saying that continuing to expand highways "is not always feasible, nor is it always wise." With forecasts saying the province's population will near 8 million by 2051, Smith says Albertans deserve "a fast, safe, and reliable choice of transportation that also meets our goals of reducing emissions."

Her decision to make the announcement standing in front of an old steam locomotive may not have conveyed the message she intended.

[LikesBikes]

I'm surprised Smith would go as far to challenge the North American orthodoxy of never-ending highway expansion and construction. Wish we had some of that thinking in NS.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

The idea that Danielle Smith's Conservatives might prioritize public transport alternatives seems surprising to many, but the Alberta government announced its "Rail Passenger Master Plan" earlier this week.

To be clear, all the premier committed to was a $9 million study, due to be completed by the middle of next year. (It won't be the first one.) But the government's vision is an ambitious 15-year delivery plan that could include:

• a high-speed (or higher-speed) rail link between Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton (there hasn't been a passenger train between these cities since VIA left the route in 1985);
• Calgary-Banff and Edmonton-Jasper rail links;
• commuter rail linking the downtown LRTs with the Calgary and Edmonton suburbs and airports.

The government proposes to set up a provincial Crown corporation to oversee it all, similar to Ontario's MetroLink.

Three years ago a couple of credible partners, the developer Ellis-Don and engineering firm AECOM, proposed a high-speed rail link between Calgary and Edmonton but it doesn't seem to have gone far. And two years ago a Banff resort owner, Liricon, proposed a Calgary-Banff rail service.

The newly green Smith was quoted as saying that continuing to expand highways "is not always feasible, nor is it always wise." With forecasts saying the province's population will near 8 million by 2051, Smith says Albertans deserve "a fast, safe, and reliable choice of transportation that also meets our goals of reducing emissions."

Her decision to make the announcement standing in front of an old steam locomotive may not have conveyed the message she intended.

I'll start off by saying that I thought standing in front of a steam locomotive was kind of cool, like a nod to the fact that in the past Canada depended upon rail travel before personal vehicle technology and good roads replaced it (or more accurately, how the popularity of personal vehicle travel allowed the government to let it be killed off). Now, as we expand our population at previously-unimagined rates, we have to consider the practicality of overloaded roadways, when a good percentage of the travel between major population centres (as well as tourist attractions) could be replaced by age-old rail travel... again.

Okay... enough of that. I find it interesting that Danielle Smith is often characterized in the digital world as being some kind of far-right nutjob, but then when I see her actually speak, she seems mostly reasonable and pragmatic. That said, I don't really follow her at all, nor do I have an appetite for the political back and forth that seems to be so popular today, so I can't speak for anything other than this rail proposal, which sounds actually quite intelligent and insightful.

Of course it's only a study, but everything has to start somewhere. It's recognizing that the future will require more capacity, and a different way of doing things. So, might as well face it head-on, and start planning now (something which Halifax, and NS in general, doesn't seem to be very good at).

Bringing this into the realm of local rail-based transit, how do people feel that this sort of action could translate to Halifax/Nova Scotia? For example, we don't really have the equivalent of Calgary and Edmonton, separated by 3 hours of highway travel without other practical alternatives, but we do have a lot of commuters traveling in from exurban areas to work/play in the city. Our land area, and perhaps level of activity, is much less than that of these busy Alberta areas, but there are still parts of our transportation systems that aren't working very well at all times.

A forward-thinking, well-thought-out rail plan would be very welcomed by myself, and I'm sure many others in NS.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'll start off by saying that I thought standing in front of a steam locomotive was kind of cool, like a nod to the fact that in the past Canada depended upon rail travel before personal vehicle technology and good roads replaced it (or more accurately, how the popularity of personal vehicle travel allowed the government to let it be killed off). Now, as we expand our population at previously-unimagined rates, we have to consider the practicality of overloaded roadways, when a good percentage of the travel between major population centres (as well as tourist attractions) could be replaced by age-old rail travel... again.

Okay... enough of that. I find it interesting that Danielle Smith is often characterized in the digital world as being some kind of far-right nutjob, but then when I see her actually speak, she seems mostly reasonable and pragmatic. That said, I don't really follow her at all, nor do I have an appetite for the political back and forth that seems to be so popular today, so I can't speak for anything other than this rail proposal, which sounds actually quite intelligent and insightful.

Of course it's only a study, but everything has to start somewhere. It's recognizing that the future will require more capacity, and a different way of doing things. So, might as well face it head-on, and start planning now (something which Halifax, and NS in general, doesn't seem to be very good at).

Bringing this into the realm of local rail-based transit, how do people feel that this sort of action could translate to Halifax/Nova Scotia? For example, we don't really have the equivalent of Calgary and Edmonton, separated by 3 hours of highway travel without other practical alternatives, but we do have a lot of commuters traveling in from exurban areas to work/play in the city. Our land area, and perhaps level of activity, is much less than that of these busy Alberta areas, but there are still parts of our transportation systems that aren't working very well at all times.

A forward-thinking, well-thought-out rail plan would be very welcomed by myself, and I'm sure many others in NS.

Overall I agree, but the part about Smith...


I mean, yes many politicians sound quite reasonable. But how they sound is as much an aspect of their communication skills, media training, and strategist taking points as of their policies. Politicians tend to speak in generalities, platitudes, and euphemisms that obscure or distort the details of what they're actually saying. Especially for someone like Smith who is a former media member.

For instance, if a politician cuts important regulations that protect consumers. The politician will say, "Strong consumer protections are important as is the need to balance regulation with growth and other factors. This change will ensure that regulations work for all stakeholders, expand consumer choices, and bring us in line with other jurisdictions."

Or a politician wants to erode certain individual rights and freedoms. The politician says, "We're working to protect our citizens and ensure we can all live in safe, functional, and prosperous communities. This move respects concerns for individual rights and freedoms while ensuring that the needs of the average person are not overshadowed by unreasonable demands at the fringes."

Well I think the politician sounds perfectly reasonable and pragmatic! I mean who doesn't want more choices or a good balance? The fact is, few normal people have the time or energy to wade through all the details of every piece of government legislation even in their own jurisdiction let alone further afield. So we need analysts to do that and report the details. It's important for the media to cut through the spin and explain exactly what's happening and what the changes actually do rather than how a politician wishes to market them. Some extreme politicians sound extreme, and some hold extreme positions while sounding very reasonable and reassuring in their defenses.

It's like the difference between how a product is presented in a commercial compared to when product reviewers actually explains how good the product is after testing it. You don't say, " Isn't it strange that this product gets such horrible reviews when it always looks so good in ads and other promotional materials?" Media analysis can be wrong obviously, but not simply because it presents politicians in a less glowing light than the politicians present themselves in.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I find it interesting that Danielle Smith is often characterized in the digital world as being some kind of far-right nutjob, but then when I see her actually speak, she seems mostly reasonable and pragmatic. That said, I don't really follow her at all, nor do I have an appetite for the political back and forth that seems to be so popular today, so I can't speak for anything other than this rail proposal, which sounds actually quite intelligent and insightful.

In my opinion, Premier Smith would more accurately be characterized as an unfortunate combination of very talented communicator and populist nutjob.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Fair enough. How about the rail proposal?