Halifax Traffic

[someone123]

It's backwards to say that the city should have BRT and outlying areas LRT. Maybe LRT is getting confused with commuter rail, which has infrequent stops and could work.

LRT or streetcar are used over BRT for higher throughput and better economics around drivers per passenger, as well as a bunch of "quality of life" and urbanism benefits. A busy rail line can be cheaper in the long run than a comparable BRT line; Ottawa in part upgraded to LRT due to operational savings. The right solution for Halifax is probably a long-term plan that defines some BRT corridors that could be upgraded to streetcar or LRT in time.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Reesor

I should bring up a flaw in my argument. Proper BRT has dedicated bus-only roadways like Ottawa has. I don't see that happening in Halifax... not enough physical space to do it. Bus lanes would have to be made on existing roadways. Unfortunately many arteries like downtown Barrington St and Spring Garden road, are not going to be wide enough to put a dedicated bus lane on. Portland St between "Penhorn Mall" and Alderney Drive isn't wide enough to put bus lanes from start to finish. BRT would likely have to take the 111 around to the "new" new bridge. BRT with dedicated bus lanes across main arteries will need to be routed around impossible choke points. But I believe there are solutions to those problems.

There is indeed a very simple solution to that flaw. All you really need is congestion pricing since that would prevent buses from getting stuck in traffic without the need for dedicated lane space. Focusing only on physical changes to the space while ignoring the importance of policy is like the proverbial person searching for their keys under the streetlight.

And it also addresses the chicken vs the egg problem with road-based transit. You could reduce traffic significantly by shifting some trips from space-hogging private vehicles onto buses making everyone's trip faster. But you can't get choice riders (people to who have access to cars) to use the buses if they're slower than cars which they are when they're stuck in the same traffic while also making more stops and sometimes following less direct route. It would be faster for everyone if enough people did it, but unless traffic congestion drops first, there's nothing to attract people to use the buses. So the bus has to already be fast in order for people to take it, but people have to already be taking it in order for it to be fast enough. And while the bus wouldn't be faster than other traffic, people would take it to avoid the charge.

So to avoid considering that obvious option, the only other option is to spend a huge amount of money to build dedicated transit infrastructure even though the existing infrastructure has plenty of capacity to move the current flow of people if the average space per person was lower (often only slightly lower). So you end up spending huge amounts of money just to avoid looking outside the "light" when congestion pricing would actually provide money rather than spending it. And the money could then be used for additional upgrades to accommodate further growth for when the current infrastructure actually does reach its limit..

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's backwards to say that the city should have BRT and outlying areas LRT. Maybe LRT is getting confused with commuter rail, which has infrequent stops and could work.

LRT or streetcar are used over BRT for higher throughput and better economics around drivers per passenger, as well as a bunch of "quality of life" and urbanism benefits. A busy rail line can be cheaper in the long run than a comparable BRT line; Ottawa in part upgraded to LRT due to operational savings. The right solution for Halifax is probably a long-term plan that defines some BRT corridors that could be upgraded to streetcar or LRT in time.

When it comes to BRT I see it as a short-term (phase 1) option to upgrade to LRT using the same corridor space. Although I didn't look at it from the staffing side of costs. Having significantly fewer drivers for LRT vs BRT would start to add up quickly!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

There is indeed a very simple solution to that flaw. All you really need is congestion pricing since that would prevent buses from getting stuck in traffic without the need for dedicated lane space. Focusing only on physical changes to the space while ignoring the importance of policy is like the proverbial person searching for their keys under the streetlight.

But politics have been going in the opposite direction with the province removing de facto congestion pricing from the bridges.

[Keith P.]

I think “congestion pricing” is even more unpopular than bike lanes, which is saying something in this town.

[OldDartmouthMark]

My personal belief is that congestion pricing is the opposite of what we should be doing.

While I know others are firm believers in this concept, it irks me that people tend to think that the best solution to a problem is to make life worse for a significantly sized group of people (the majority in this case) in order to accomplish a goal that has more than one method with which to achieve success.

The concept that I like (and tend to champion here) is to offer better alternatives to the status quo. Turn an unpleasant experience into a pleasant (or at least less painful) experience. Buses are not necessarily that, since they tend to be cramped, run on the same poor road surfaces as regular traffic, and tend to be slow… and did I mention uncomfortable? Congestion pricing will only function to force people to take a less enjoyable mode of transportation, like a bus or bicycle, or to just say fuck it and (unhappily) take the hit. There is a decrease in quality of life associated with this that makes the place less nice to live in.

Meanwhile trains are more spacious and smooth, faster and more reliable. IMHO, they would be enough to make many people forgo the traffic experience for an improved commute.

Ferries offer a similar level-up in that they are a nicer experience overall. Plus being on the water they can be a more interesting ride for many. The downside is that the water can be a little rough on windy days, so not perfect, but still better than a bus IMHO.

To each his/her own, however.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

There is indeed a very simple solution to that flaw. All you really need is congestion pricing since that would prevent buses from getting stuck in traffic without the need for dedicated lane space. Focusing only on physical changes to the space while ignoring the importance of policy is like the proverbial person searching for their keys under the streetlight.

This doesn't address the chicken-egg problem. I also don't really understand the implication here, that policy changes like congestion pricing are superior to building physical infrastructure. There is exactly one North American city that has impemented purposeful (i.e., not just road tolls or something) congestion pricing, New York City. And NYC already had probably the best urban/regional transportation system on the continent. It also had congestion that was much worse than here, which made congestion pricing more politically palatable. Even then, congestion pricing has become so politically fraught that the battle over its future is being waged up in the courts, and could still be overturned. It's definitely not coming to Halifax.

Even if council passed it (which they won't) it would immediately be shot down by the province. Imagine telling people who work on the peninsula, or out of towners visiting the health facilities, or other people using centrally located services, that they now need to pay an extra fee to get into the city. The blowback would be insane. You've got 85,000 Nova Scotians on the Halifax peninsula, and one million off of it. The politics of the province being what they are, this would absolutely never, ever happen. Or, if it did, it would be so shot through with exceptions and exemptions that it would be almost useless.

And though I'm pro-congestion pricing as a concept, I do think it would be a huge mistake. In the absence of reliable rapid transit, all it would achieve if implemented right now is to reduce inbound traffic, reducing visitorship to the urban core, which would be bad for the city. At the same time, I'm very, very skeptical that it would reduce traffic so much that it would allow us to run rapid buses on existing road infrastructure without making physical changes. I think we would end up with less but not zero congestion, coupled with a quieter, less vibrant downtown and urban core.

Congestion pricing is a great idea in some contexts. It is not a first-line solution to congestion, especially when there are better modes of transportation waiting in the wings.

[Reesor]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's backwards to say that the city should have BRT and outlying areas LRT. Maybe LRT is getting confused with commuter rail, which has infrequent stops and could work.

LRT or streetcar are used over BRT for higher throughput and better economics around drivers per passenger, as well as a bunch of "quality of life" and urbanism benefits. A busy rail line can be cheaper in the long run than a comparable BRT line; Ottawa in part upgraded to LRT due to operational savings. The right solution for Halifax is probably a long-term plan that defines some BRT corridors that could be upgraded to streetcar or LRT in time.

BRT is suggested due to their not being enough land for proper LRT. Can have LRT wherever the street is wide enough for it. Need wider streets for LRT than you do for BRT. Going underground or overground in a 500,000 person city would probably be too expensive for the size of the city. I like the idea of creating the BRT corridor that is able to be upgraded to LRT down the road.

[Reesor]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

My personal belief is that congestion pricing is the opposite of what we should be doing.

While I know others are firm believers in this concept, it irks me that people tend to think that the best solution to a problem is to make life worse for a significantly sized group of people (the majority in this case) in order to accomplish a goal that has more than one method with which to achieve success.

The concept that I like (and tend to champion here) is to offer better alternatives to the status quo. Turn an unpleasant experience into a pleasant (or at least less painful) experience. Buses are not necessarily that, since they tend to be cramped, run on the same poor road surfaces as regular traffic, and tend to be slow… and did I mention uncomfortable? Congestion pricing will only function to force people to take a less enjoyable mode of transportation, like a bus or bicycle, or to just say fuck it and (unhappily) take the hit. There is a decrease in quality of life associated with this that makes the place less nice to live in.

Meanwhile trains are more spacious and smooth, faster and more reliable. IMHO, they would be enough to make many people forgo the traffic experience for an improved commute.

Ferries offer a similar level-up in that they are a nicer experience overall. Plus being on the water they can be a more interesting ride for many. The downside is that the water can be a little rough on windy days, so not perfect, but still better than a bus IMHO.

To each his/her own, however.

I've love LRT here. I just think the hurdles are too much to overcome. Even if Halifax had endless trunks of money, it just has way too little land to accomodate what makes LRT great. Kitchener/Waterloo seems to have land right through the heart of the municipality to make dedicated rail lines and rail lines sharing road space along a major artery. Much easier to do when your city is a big grid without a huge harbour in the way.

Fast ferries take advantage of that big harbour in the way. But compare the cost per customer of the ferries vs the cost per customer of completing a comprehensive BRT grid, and I think the BRT makes more sense in the short term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCmTtmci-bE

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Reesor

BRT is suggested due to their not being enough land for proper LRT. Can have LRT wherever the street is wide enough for it. Need wider streets for LRT than you do for BRT. Going underground or overground in a 500,000 person city would probably be too expensive for the size of the city. I like the idea of creating the BRT corridor that is able to be upgraded to LRT down the road.

I don't know about this. If you mean the roads aren't physically wide enough, this seems incorrect. Almost all of them could have two-way tracks, and many could have tracks plus other traffic in a single lane in each direction. There are possible turning radius issues at some intersections but I'm sure there are possible routes.

Underground or elevated segments aren't cost prohibitive. It depends on the particulars. Digging 30 km of tunnels with underground stations would cost tens of billions. But above-ground stations with some short tunnel sections is in the hundreds of millions range. Short elevated sections, like a dedicated overpass near some intersection, can be less. These possibilities shouldn't be offhandedly discounted.

I sometimes see people argue that a lack of space means cars really need all the space they can get and there's nowhere left for LRT, but that one is wrong and a dead end. LRT is a more efficient use of a small portion of the transportation network. You give up some car space but you gain the ability to transport orders of magnitude more people than could be done in the old car lanes. Meanwhile, trying to squeeze as much space as possible for mixed traffic out of the same old road network has heavy diminishing returns.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

This doesn't address the chicken-egg problem. I also don't really understand the implication here, that policy changes like congestion pricing are superior to building physical infrastructure. There is exactly one North American city that has impemented purposeful (i.e., not just road tolls or something) congestion pricing, New York City. And NYC already had probably the best urban/regional transportation system on the continent. It also had congestion that was much worse than here, which made congestion pricing more politically palatable. Even then, congestion pricing has become so politically fraught that the battle over its future is being waged up in the courts, and could still be overturned. It's definitely not coming to Halifax.

Even if council passed it (which they won't) it would immediately be shot down by the province. Imagine telling people who work on the peninsula, or out of towners visiting the health facilities, or other people using centrally located services, that they now need to pay an extra fee to get into the city. The blowback would be insane. You've got 85,000 Nova Scotians on the Halifax peninsula, and one million off of it. The politics of the province being what they are, this would absolutely never, ever happen. Or, if it did, it would be so shot through with exceptions and exemptions that it would be almost useless.

And though I'm pro-congestion pricing as a concept, I do think it would be a huge mistake. In the absence of reliable rapid transit, all it would achieve if implemented right now is to reduce inbound traffic, reducing visitorship to the urban core, which would be bad for the city. At the same time, I'm very, very skeptical that it would reduce traffic so much that it would allow us to run rapid buses on existing road infrastructure without making physical changes. I think we would end up with less but not zero congestion, coupled with a quieter, less vibrant downtown and urban core.

Congestion pricing is a great idea in some contexts. It is not a first-line solution to congestion, especially when there are better modes of transportation waiting in the wings.

I didn't mean that policy changes are superior to infrastructure changes. Just that they're easier when there's limited funds since policy - at least that specific policy - takes far less money to implement and actually generates funds that can be used for better infrastructure.

And while I understand the arguments about needing reliable transit, I just don't think it makes sense because the main thing that causes transit to be unreliable in Halifax is the congestion delays. So CP does the thing that people claim is needed. It improves the effectiveness of whatever type of transit a place already has. I also don't understand why it wouldn't address the chicken-egg problem. If a greater percentage of people have to take transit in order for congestion to be lower, and congestion has to be lower in order for more people to take transit, then something that both lowers congestion and gets more people to take transit at the same time eliminates the need for one or the other to happen first. And it wouldn't make people's lives worst because a) it would eliminate congestion which is a huge improvement to a city's quality of life, and the cost wouldn't need to be very high to discourage a small percentage of people from driving.

I will however, say that the policy change is superior to physical infrastructure in one way. The streets would still be clogged even if you create expensive transit infrastructure while with CP they wouldn't be, So the infrastructure benefits those who use it while CP benefits everyone.

[Nouvellecosse]

I'll also point out that it makes little sense to claim that CP is somehow more fraught in NY due to court challenges when every major change in NY is met with court challenges, Including all major road and transit projects.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

There is exactly one North American city that has impemented purposeful (i.e., not just road tolls or something) congestion pricing, New York City.

NYC is interesting. It has a great endowment of infrastructure but most of that is very old and it struggles to build anything new (like the 2nd Ave subway or NJ tunnel), even when huge amounts of money is thrown at problems. So positive solutions are partly off the table and it probably looks more attractive as a lever.

It's very different from Halifax where basically it comes down to one premier who doesn't seem to like funding low-hanging-fruit transit projects like dedicated bus lanes.

I wonder about Japan as there are much larger and busier cities than Halifax there with tons of transit that have much more orderly traffic. There probably are expensive tolls as well as higher costs of vehicle ownership and cultural differences. I'm not even sure Tokyo's traffic is "worse" than Halifax. 95%+ of people get around by transit and then you see lots of orderly delivery vehicles and taxis moving at a reasonable pace with some private cars. It's interesting. I usually associated bigger, busier cities with more congestion and aggressive driving, but it's not true in Japan.

[Reesor]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't know about this. If you mean the roads aren't physically wide enough, this seems incorrect. Almost all of them could have two-way tracks, and many could have tracks plus other traffic in a single lane in each direction. There are possible turning radius issues at some intersections but I'm sure there are possible routes.

Underground or elevated segments aren't cost prohibitive. It depends on the particulars. Digging 30 km of tunnels with underground stations would cost tens of billions. But above-ground stations with some short tunnel sections is in the hundreds of millions range. Short elevated sections, like a dedicated overpass near some intersection, can be less. These possibilities shouldn't be offhandedly discounted.

I sometimes see people argue that a lack of space means cars really need all the space they can get and there's nowhere left for LRT, but that one is wrong and a dead end. LRT is a more efficient use of a small portion of the transportation network. You give up some car space but you gain the ability to transport orders of magnitude more people than could be done in the old car lanes. Meanwhile, trying to squeeze as much space as possible for mixed traffic out of the same old road network has heavy diminishing returns.

It just depends on the goal of LRT. Where are the customers going? If they're coming from Cole Harbour, it'd be awfully tough to put LRT down Portland St past Penhorn mall. Sackville/Bedford would be too long of a run.

With all the development on the peninsula, there are options for LRT between Lacewood/West End Mall, Down Joseph Howe, Up Bayers Road/Young and down Robie to those hospitals and universities. Could put a line down Cogswell to downtown as well. I just don't see it happening outside that area. I picture BRT being the easiest of the options where it can be implemented across a wider area and help a higher percentage of Haligonians. If we keep on going with the densification of the peninsula, LRT may be worth the cost in that dense area.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

NYC is interesting. It has a great endowment of infrastructure but most of that is very old and it struggles to build anything new (like the 2nd Ave subway or NJ tunnel), even when huge amounts of money is thrown at problems. So positive solutions are partly off the table and it probably looks more attractive as a lever.

It's very different from Halifax where basically it comes down to one premier who doesn't seem to like funding low-hanging-fruit transit projects like dedicated bus lanes.

I wonder about Japan as there are much larger and busier cities than Halifax there with tons of transit that have much more orderly traffic. There probably are expensive tolls as well as higher costs of vehicle ownership and cultural differences. I'm not even sure Tokyo's traffic is "worse" than Halifax. 95%+ of people get around by transit and then you see lots of orderly delivery vehicles and taxis moving at a reasonable pace with some private cars. It's interesting. I usually associated bigger, busier cities with more congestion and aggressive driving, but it's not true in Japan.

Yes it's much more difficult and more costly to have a car there. For instance, they need to prove that they have a dedicated off-street parking space before they can even get a permit for a vehicle. And most expressways there are also tolled. So they basically have CP in effect even if not in name. But yes, when such a small percentage of people get around by road, congestion might still exist but it isn't that important since it doesn't have as much effect on most people.

[someone123]

I think the main issue with Dartmouth is it's not dense enough and it would need some kind of harbour crossing. As you say I think the best route would be on the Halifax side, something like Robie out to Lacewood. Some tricky parts could be dealt with via tunneling.

I still think it was a mistake not to do some kind of planning and consider what sort of future underground transit tunnel could be built around Barrington and Cogswell and how it might interact with an above-ground transit mall like portion along Spring Garden Road to build a leg of higher-order transit serving the downtown area. Robie would be the corridor connecting on eventually to Lacewood.

I would also widen the small portion of Cogswell that is 2 lanes today, and complete the 4 lane Robie corridor.

The Barrington corridor is only around 800 m long and the SGR transitway would be another 900 m. Creating a tunnel on Barrington would be expensive and disruptive, and would not have to be built tomorrow, but it really would be a bolder city-building project. By doing cut-and-cover and putting the station under the Grand Parade costs would be lower. Another station could have been integrated into a development on the Cogswell lands, and then others (for example library and Quinpool/Robie) would be above ground.

[Antigonish]

The upside of LRT is adjusting development around each of the lines and stations. Developers would actually invest in areas that will never be moved once built; it isn't like the bus system where routes can be changed on a whim and rerouted. It increases and sustains value in areas directly accessible to the LRT line and stations.

Also, we absolutely have the ability to build LRT ROW on the existing street network but a few adjustments here or there will be needed but nothing out of the ordinary. Major routes like Quinpool (remove street parking) or Connaught (utilize median) are more than possible. It takes real will and not taking "no" for an answer and it can be done.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think the main issue with Dartmouth is it's not dense enough and it would need some kind of harbour crossing. As you say I think the best route would be on the Halifax side, something like Robie out to Lacewood. Some tricky parts could be dealt with via tunneling.

I still think it was a mistake not to do some kind of planning and consider what sort of future underground transit tunnel could be built around Barrington and Cogswell and how it might interact with an above-ground transit mall like portion along Spring Garden Road to build a leg of higher-order transit serving the downtown area. Robie would be the corridor connecting on eventually to Lacewood.

I would also widen the small portion of Cogswell that is 2 lanes today, and complete the 4 lane Robie corridor.

The Barrington corridor is only around 800 m long and the SGR transitway would be another 900 m. Creating a tunnel on Barrington would be expensive and disruptive, and would not have to be built tomorrow, but it really would be a bolder city-building project. By doing cut-and-cover and putting the station under the Grand Parade costs would be lower. Another station could have been integrated into a development on the Cogswell lands, and then others (for example library and Quinpool/Robie) would be above ground.

There are still the remnants of a rail corridor running along the harbour narrows through africville, pier 9, shipyard and DND dockyard…..

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Summerville

There are still the remnants of a rail corridor running along the harbour narrows through africville, pier 9, shipyard and DND dockyard…..

Indeed. That seems overlooked by many but it could well be the preferred way to connect to DT with some effort by three levels of govt to obtain ROWs.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Summerville

There are still the remnants of a rail corridor running along the harbour narrows through africville, pier 9, shipyard and DND dockyard…..

I wonder if the Africville component might be a no-go for political reasons, though.