An Investigation Into The Potential Of Modern Streetcars In Halifax

1An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax

MODERN URBAN STREETCARS

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax

This work is a senior thesis project in partial fulfillment of the Masters of Planning Program at Dalhousie University, Halifax Nova Scotia. Patrick Klassen - January 8, 2009

urba

nrai

l.net

urba

nrai

l.net

flick

r co

mm

ons


Special thanks to the faculty and staff at Dalhousie University’s School of Planning, in particuliar Prof. Michael Poulton who advised this study.


Executive SummaryHalifax’s urban periphery has grown considerably over the past decades, led, in part, by the abun-dance of affordable land and the attraction of a suburban lifestyle. To address this growing popula-tion, Halifax has extended its services and constructed new roads and infrastructure in its peripheral areas. The result of this trend has, to some extent, been a gradual decline in the activity and popula-tion of Halifax’s downtown core. With anticipated population and employment growth over the next 20 years, this trend, if continued, will strain the ability of the City to provide and maintain services. The planning response to these conditions has been a desire to focus future settlement and develop-ment into existing urban areas, with a particular focus on the Halifax Peninsula. To achieve this, the City will need to revitalize its urban core by establishing the conditions to better attract investment and settlement. This study addresses such issues by conducting an investigation into the potential of modern streetcars as a tool to address the city’s urban transportation and development agenda.

The study takes an investigative approach and examines the strengths and weaknesses of streetcar systems in comparator cities to shed light upon their potential for application in Halifax. Through a comparator analyses of six cities – Karlsruhe and Saarbrucken, Germany; Orleans, France; Tacoma, Portland and Kenosha, United States – the study illustrates the benefits of the modern urban streetcar. By providing an efficient, high capacity and reliable form of transit, with a sense of permanence (fixed rails), a streetcar system has the potential to attract residents and investment, increase transit ridership and stimulate core area business and pedestrian activity.

Following a comparator analysis, the study completes a case investigation of Halifax. The City, with a dense population on the Peninsula, an agglomeration of urban employment and destinations and a growing (transit) commuter population, exhibits characteristics that, when contrasted against the com-parators, suggest an increasingly supportive environment for the modern electric streetcar.

Chr

isto

ph G

rone

ck /

Urb

anra

il.ne

t


To test the streetcars potential, the study examines its possible alignment within the city’s core. The results show that an urban system 7.4 km long could capture a total population of over 31,000 resi-dents, with an urban catchment density of over 4,100 /km2, a level higher than most comparators examined. Such a system would also provide a direct connection to areas that have been identified by the City for development, including the Waterfront Development Lands, Cogswell intersection and the south Docklands (Pier 21). As illustrated through comparator reviews, the streetcar has the poten-tial to catalyze significant amounts of secondary investment in these areas.

The investigation of Halifax concludes that streetcars have potential in a future urban application. To broaden this analysis, the study then examines the alternative to a streetcar (local bus). It concludes that while running local bus service will have lower capital costs and potentially lower operating costs, there are numerous personal mobility, transit operation, urban environment and economic spin-off benefits from streetcar service that supports its implementation over busses on appropriate urban corridors.

In summary, this study provides a rationale for the potential future application of modern streetcars in downtown Halifax, with the following recommendations for the HRM:

Complete a preliminary design, layout & ridership study to1) : determine the costs associated with the design, construction and operation a downtown streetcars line in Halifax; investigate any technical constraints of alignment; forecast ridership; and explore potential external (Federal & Provincial) infrastructure funding from which the HRM could benefit.

Research market demand for transit orientated development in Halifax2) , particularly commercial and residential, with a particular focus on the downtown Waterfront Development Lands, the Docklands (Pier 21) and the north end Gottingen and Agricola Street corridor. The research should also investigate the potential for transportation orientated private-public partner within these areas.

The findings of the study indicate that, while existing conditions may currently not be optimal, there is considerable potential for the future of a modern downtown streetcar system. This potential justifies further consideration and, at the least, provisions for such consideration within the Halifax Regional Municipality’s future transportation plan.

Chr

isto

ph G

rone

ck /

Urb

anra

il.ne

t


Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. .........6

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................9

PURPOSE ....................................................................................................11

BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................12

MODERN STREETCAR VS LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT) ................................15

RESEARCH APPROACH & METHODOLOGY ..............................................16

COMPARATOR REVIEWS ............................................................................17

ORLEANS, France ........................................................................................18

KARLSRUHE, Germany ................................................................................20

SAARBRUCKEN, Germany...........................................................................22

PORTLAND, United States ...........................................................................25

TACOMA, United States ...............................................................................29

KENOSHA, United States .............................................................................31

OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS ......................................................................37

CASE INVESTIGATION – HALIFAX ..............................................................40

HALIFAX PROFILE .......................................................................................40

STRENGTHS ................................................................................................42

WEAKNESSES ..............................................................................................46

OPPORTUNITIES .........................................................................................48

CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................50

ROUTE SCREENING ....................................................................................51

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ............................................................................58

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................61

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................62

REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................63

APPENDIX ...................................................................................................67


List of Figures

Figure 1.0 (Graph) Current + Projected Population – HRMFigure 2.0 (Graph) Current + Projected Employment – HRMFigure 3.0 (Image) Yarmouth Electric Streetcar, Circa 1900 Figure 4.0 (Graph) Decline of the US StreetcarFigure 5.0 (Image) Development Along the Portland StreetcarFigure 6.0 (Image) Modern Electric Streetcar VehicleFigure 7.0 (Image) Light Rail Transit (LRT) VehicleFigure 8.0 (Chart) Preliminary List of Comparator Streetcar CitiesFigure 9.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis Map - OrleansFigure 10.0 (Image) Orleans Streetcar on Grass MedianFigure 11.0 (Image) Orleans Streetcar In-StreetFigure 12.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis Map - KarlsruheFigure 13.0 (Image) Karlsruhe Tram-TrainFigure 14.0 (Image) Karlsruhe Tram In-Street Figure 15.0 (Image) Karlsruhe PalaceFigure 16.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis Map - SaarbruckenFigure 17.0 (Image) Saarbrucken Streetcar In-StreetFigure 18.0 (Image) Saarbrucken Streetcar at StationFigure 19.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis of PortlandFigure 20.0 (Image) Panorama of Downtown PortlandFigure 21.0 (Image) Portland MAX vehicleFigure 22.0 (Image) New Portland MAX Vehicle with BusFigure 23.0 (Image) Portland Streetcar in TrafficFigure 24.0 (Image) Portland Streetcar Crossing City SquareFigure 25.0 (Chart) Growth in Building Density Based Upon Distance from StreetcarFigure 26.0 (Graph) Percent of CBD Development Based Upon Distance from StreetcarFigure 27.0 (Image) Development along Portland Streetcar RouteFigure 28.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis of TacomaFigure 29.0 (Image) Tacoma Dome Streetcar StationFigure 30.0 (Image) Downtown Tacoma StreetcarFigure 31.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis of KenoshaFigure 32.0 (Image) Kenosha Metra StationFigure 33.0 (Image) Kenosha StreetcarFigure 34.0 (Image) Kenosha Harbourfront DevelopmentFigure 35.0 (Graph) Comparator City PopulationsFigure 36.0 (Graph) Average Population of North American Cities with LRT Systems Compared to Average Population of Initially Screened Cities with Streetcars


Figure 37.0 (Graph) Comparator City Densities Figure 38.0 (Graph) Comparator Catchment Densities Figure 39.0 (Image) Busy Amsterdam Streetcar NeighbourhoodFigure 40.0 (Image) Lisbon Streetcar on HillFigure 41.0 (Graph) Percent FAR Realized Based Upon Distance from StreetcarFigure 42.0 (Picture) Development Along the Portland Streetcar LineFigure 43.0 (Graph) Halifax Area ComparisonFigure 44.0 (Graph) Halifax Population ComparisonFigure 45.0 (Graph) Halifax Density ComparisonFigure 46.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis of HalifaxFigure 47.0 (Graph) Population: Comparator Cities + HalifaxFigure 48.0 (Graph) Density: Comparator Cities + HalifaxFigure 49.0 (Map) Halifax Peninsula DensityFigure 50.0 (Map) Halifax Core Land Use–Education, Health Care & Industry/PortFigure 51.0 (Map) Halifax Core Land Use–BusinessFigure 52.0 (Map) Halifax Core Land Use–Shopping / RetailFigure 53.0 (Map) Halifax Core Land Use -Transit HubsFigure 54.0 (Image) Bayers Lake Business ParkFigure 55.0 (Image) Burnside Business Park ExpansionFigure 56.0 (Map) Halifax Peninsula SlopeFigure 57.0 (Map) Halifax Core Land Use-Potential Development SitesFigure 58.0 (Map) Halifax Land Use Analysis MapFigure 59.0 (Map) Downtown Circulator Route AlignmentFigure 60.0 (Map) Extended Downtown Circulator Analysis MapFigure 61.0 (Map) Extended + West Downtown Circulator Analysis MapFigure 62.0 (Image) Dalhousie Studley CampusFigure 63.0 (Chart) Bus Vs. Streetcar Comparison Context Figure 64.0 (Image) Modern Electric Trolley Bus



IntroductionIn recent years, a new mode of urban transportation – the modern electric streetcar – has been

gaining popularity and support in North America. A number of cities, including Portland, Seattle,

Memphis and Little Rock, have introduced streetcars as downtown circulator lines. In doing so,

these cities have chosen the streetcar as a key mode for transit in their downtown core. This trend

has not been reserved to the larger metropolitan areas as traditional commuter rail has been. Smaller

American cities, such as Tacoma, Galveston and Kenosha, have also implemented streetcar systems

within their downtowns. In the majority of cases they have been implemented as a circulation service

for downtown residents and commuters. In several cases they have also been used to encourage

transit orientated investment and development. Portland, for example, has used its streetcar line to

catalyze urban revitalization and development within its core area.

In Europe, the electric streetcar, or tram as they are known, has had a prominent and sustained role

in urban passenger transportation. Unlike in North America, where the majority of streetcars were

removed in the early 20th century, many remained and evolved over time. Of the European cities

that did remove their traditional streetcars, several have since re-introduced modern variants. Today,

over 125 European cities operate upgraded or new modern streetcar systems (Schwandl, 2007). As

in North America, these are not restricted to larger cities. In fact, European systems can be found

in several cities with populations under 100,000. As a result of their history and evolution in urban

transport, streetcars in Europe generally serve as commuter transportation, although in many cases

they exhibit extraordinary innovation in their service as urban circulators. In some European cities

the streetcar is now the primary provider of urban transit.

While contextually different, these examples provide considerable insight into the recent re-

emergence of the electric streetcar in North America. Seen to embody the `modern image’ of a city,

the modern streetcar can function as a tool for cities seeking to address urban congestion, systematize

public transportation, and guide urban development (Crampton, 2003; Hass-Klau & Crampton, 2002).

They are a mode of transit that compliments more traditional commuter rail or bus systems. In this

sense, they function as urban circulators or ‘pedestrian accelerators’ within downtowns and adjoining

neighbourhoods. This is of particular significance for North American cities where an increasing

number of urban household trips are between downtown destinations, rather than the traditional

home to work commute (HDR Ltd., 2007).

However, while the popularity of streetcars has risen, fundamental difficulties remain. The addition

of public urban rail-based transportation, which excels best in a high-density urban structure, to a

car-dominated urban system, can have disappointing results (Cramption, 2003). This is particularly

relevant in North America, where travel behavior favours automobile use. The North American

governance structure and attitude has also tended to be reactive in nature, failing in many ways to


Figure 1.0: Current + Projected Population - HRM

Figure 2.0: Current + Projected Employment - HRM

The Halifax Peninsula

Projections from Clayton Research and Gardner-Pinfold Ltd. suggest that over the next 20 years the population of the Halifax Peninsula will increase by up to 20,000, while employment will increase by up to 24,000. The resulting settlement will raise the Peninsula's average population density from 3,220/km2 to 4,255/km2.

anticipate policy outcomes, in particular to

road construction, and in addressing future

urban transportation needs (Bertaud, 2002).

The results can be seen in the peripheral

growth of many North American cities and

the increased congestion and strain this

form of growth has had.

The Halifax Context

These issues all have relevance for the

Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM).

As Atlantic Canada’s commercial,

industrial and civic core, the city has seen

considerable in-migration and growth

– a trend that is expected to continue.

Research suggests that the population will

increase by up to 84,000 over the next 20

years (Clayton Research, 2004). To ensure

balanced growth and focused development,

the city has engaged in comprehensive

planning and visioning processes (HRM,

2006; HRM, 2008). These processes

propose that the majority of population

settlement and growth occur within the

Municipality’s existing urban areas, with

a particular focus on the city’s suburbs

and central peninsula (HRM, 2006; HRM,

2008).

The same planning processes envision

considerable development of key areas

along the city’s waterfront, including the

potential re-development of the Cogswell

intersection into an expanded Central

Business District – CBD, as well as the

residential development of the Waterfront

Development Lands (HRM, 2006; HRM,

2008). Other areas, such as the Gottingen

Street corridor and the south docklands


(Pier 21) area, exhibit considerable potential. The development of these core areas corresponds with

the city’s vision for a strong central economic cluster, and a dense urban core (HRM, 2006).

The reality, however, is less different. While the HRM plans for increased urban density, it continues

to support peripheral residential development and business park expansion (HRM, 2008; HRM [B],

2008). While these activities may be justified by the availability of affordable land – the market driver

for suburban development – they are, nevertheless, a leading cause of core area decline.

What is needed is an approach that renews the attraction of the city’s urban core while enhancing its

connectivity and accessibility. Such an approach would aim to restore the downtown’s comparative

advantage of agglomeration and livability and make its development and settlement attractive to

developers and residents alike. This concept of such an approach is supported in the language of

the city’s Economic Strategy – we (Halifax) cannot be complacent and expect growth to continue

unless we nurture the conditions for growth. The decisions and investments we make today and the

priorities we set now will affect us over the next two decades (HRM, 2004). This statement captures

the underlying principle of this study.

With consideration to the city’s position as Atlantic Canada’s regional hub, the anticipated growth

and settlement it faces and its desire to foster urban development, this study examines the potential

of modern streetcars as a tool to address the city’s urban transportation and development agenda.

To achieve this the study takes an investigative approach – examining the strengths and weaknesses

of streetcar systems in comparator cities to shed light upon the potential for application in Halifax.

In doing so it identifies corridors within Halifax that have a potential to support streetcars. It then

provides a brief comparison between alternatives modes of urban transportation, where the pros and

cons of each are weighed against the goals of the study (below).

This study provides a starting point for the potential future application of modern streetcars in Halifax.

It acts as a guiding document for the future analysis and study that is recommended.

Purpose

The purpose of streetcars, in this context, would be to provide an attractive method of redistributing

people with Halifax’s urban core, which would also renew the attraction of its downtown core for

investment, and as a place for the settlement of future population. Guiding the central thesis of this

study are the goals for introducing a modern downtown streetcar system in Halifax:

1) To catalyze development and redevelopment potential around a transit investment by providing a transit line with a visible permanence (rail tracks and stations).

2) To increase transit ridership by providing circulation service that better connects local urban neighborhoods with downtown.


3) To increase transit ridership by providing circulation service that better connects destinations within downtown.

4) To provide connections to other regional transit services for the fast, flexible and efficient redistribution of passengers within downtown.

5) To reduce the environmental impacts of public transportation.

The objective is to establish the rationale for future application. To provide context, the study begins

with an overview of the history and evolution of the electric streetcar.

Background

The traditional electric streetcar was

perhaps the most significant urban

transportation innovation of the 19th

century. A successor of the horse drawn

car, it was first successfully demonstrated

by Werner Van Siemens, of Siemens-

Halske, at a Berlin industrial exposition

in 1879. In 1884 a 1-mile line in East

Cleveland was opened as the first

commercial electric railway in North America

(Passer, 1953). In the same year the Toronto Electric

Light Company opened a line at the Toronto Industrial Exhibition, the first of its kind in Canada, and

the first in North America with an overhead electric line. The first multi-line system was introduced

in 1888 in Richmond, Virginia. The system, serviced by its own 375 horsepower electric generator,

ran 40 cars over more than 19kms of track. The system was a success, and served as the prototype

for the electrification of many traditional horse drawn systems, including Boston’s, which was the

largest street railway in the world at the time (Black, 1995). Richmond was the breakthrough that

catalyzed the electric streetcar movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. In 1896, Halifax

entered the streetcar era by replacing its horse drawn trolleys with electrified streetcars. Its system

spread quickly and was extended throughout the Halifax Peninsula.

The electric streetcar dominated urban transportation in much of North American and Europe for

four decades. Lines where built in almost every town and city, with the majority of systems being

privately constructed and operated. By 1917, there were almost 44,800 miles of streetcar track and

11.3 billion riders per year in the United States (Berstein, 2007). The US streetcar peaked in 1923,

approximately 30 years after its introduction, when they carried 13.6 billion passengers (Black,

1995).

Figure 3.0 Yarmouth Electric Streetcar, Circa 1900 Source: www.alts.net


Streetcars were the catalysts of development, transporting residents between home and employment,

and providing industry and commerce with steady and reliable supplies of both labour and

customers. Often lines were built into suburban areas, where operators owned property they wished

to develop – a classic case of land value capture. In doing so they also enabling people to realize the

benefits of suburban living while maintaining their connection to the urban centers.

But the success of the streetcars came at a price. As competition from other streetcar and bus

operators increased, profit shares dropped. In some cases, local monopolies were established and

extracted high fares. In North America these complications led to the fixing of fares at $0.05, a level

that would be increasingly unprofitable with the inflation that followed the First World War and Great

Depression (Black, 1995). Then, with the mass production of the automobile consumers began to

realize affordable personal mobility. Demand for the streetcar dwindled. Busses, simpler and more

flexible, were introduced as their replacements. Some, like Halifax and Vancouver, transitioned to

electric trolley busses that provided the flexibility but remained connected to overhead wires. In

1949 Halifax removed its last electric streetcar from its system. In response to increased traffic –

actual and forecasted – government policies also shifted their support to the construction of Highways

and Freeways, further encouraging the move from public transit to the private automobile.

The result was a move away from streetcar-orientated development towards one led by the private

auto (APTA, 2008). As the suburbs have continued to spread and roads extended, the dependence

on the private auto has grown. The result has been the increasing congestion of the road network,

and the disconnection between the downtown core and the suburbs. With congestion, daily

commute times have risen. In response to this trend there has been a growing desire for a greater

quality urban lifestyle with livable and walkable communities, free from traffic (Braund, 2008; CTOD

[C], 2006). Traditional bus systems have also become increasingly limited by traffic (IBI Group,

2006). Rising fuel prices and environmental awareness has also raised concerns over emissions from

Figure 4.0 Decline of the US Streetcar

Sour

ce: B

raun

d, D

., et

. al.,

200

8


traditional diesel busses and the continued use of fossil fuels. The result has been a renewed interest

in downtown living, where residents are able to live and work in reasonable proximity, with shorter

commutes. This trend has been exemplified in cities such as Vancouver and Portland, which have

seen increased core residential development (APTA, 2008). This renewed interest in urban living has,

in part, served to draw attention to modern streetcars. Dangerously connected to this trend, however,

is the stark reality of the higher costs of urban living.

Residents are not the only ones adversely affected by congestion. Business and industry has also

been negatively affected by increased automobile traffic, particularly in Halifax where there is an

identified need for improved transportation and distribution infrastructure to reduce congestion

(HRM [B], 2007). Concerned with the raising costs of delay and land values around the urban core,

businesses have been increasingly drawn to (and encouraged to locate in) peripheral business parks.

This trend has served to further the divide and increase suburban sprawl.

These concerns are causing cities to re-evaluate their land use strategies to encourage denser

development and to provide more effective and higher capacity transit solutions. The City of Halifax

plans to focus 75% of future settlement in its existing urban area, of which a third is planned for

the core peninsula (HRM, 2006; HRM, 2008). Commuter transit systems are also being improved

– in Halifax express bus and, soon, ferry – to provide an alternative for commuters, and to address

increasing congestion. These trends have, in effect, laid the foundation for better Transit-Oriented-

Development (TOD), the foundation of which is strong transit system (Bernstein, 2006). The reality,

however, is that at the same time the City has been approving considerable suburban residential

developments and expanding its suburban business parks. Halifax needs to investigate ways to focus

some of this development into its urban core.

Across North America, cities are looking at fixed guide way transit, particularly the modern

streetcar, to focus development into their downtown cores (Braund, 2008). The fixed presence of

rail infrastructure gives developers the confidence of long-term prospects. In some cases they have

successfully encouraged a density of development that has made the neighborhoods they serve more

efficient in land use and more desirable places to live (APTA, 2008). In other cases they have created

spare, expensive connector routes that have nominally served corridors perhaps better served by bus

Figure 5.0 - Development along Portland Streetcar Line

Source: flickr commons


(Cervero, 2006). Whatever the case, modern streetcars have witnessed a considerable revival. More

than a dozen North American cities have streetcar systems that have either been started or expanded

in the past 15 years (Bell, 2008). At least twice as many additional cities have new systems or lines

under active consideration (Bell, 2008).

Although there are no immediate plans for rail-based transit in Halifax, the Regional Municipal

Planning Strategy (RMPS) does include provisions for future consideration:

"In the more distant future there may be potential to use rail lines in HRM for some form of

transit service… With this in mind, it is important to consider long-term possibilities, including

rail, when addressing proposals affecting railway infrastructure or corridors. It is also important

to consider the potential for intermodal transfers when planning bus or ferry terminals close to

rail lines."

- Regional Municipal Planning Strategy, 2006. page 79)

What appears clear, however, is that the general interpretation of ‘rail’ within the HRM concerns

commuter rail service, as opposed to a core based circulator service (McCusker, 2008). This study

is concerned with the latter. The streetcar, in this context, is a modern single car light rail vehicle

that operates on both dedicated right of way and/or tracks embedded within the street. Its main

application is as a downtown circulator.


Modern Streetcat Vs. Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Streetcars are considered light rail, however, they differ considerably from traditional linear forms,

often referred to as Light Rail Transit (LRT). The typical definition of a streetcar is a light rail passenger

vehicle, using electric power, that runs on streets, provides local service and has frequent stops

(Braund, et. al., 2008; ReConnecting America, 2008). Typically they consist of a single, often

articulated, rail vehicle, and run at slower speed compared to commuter rail. The major differences

between streetcars and more traditional LRT systems are summarized below (Braund, et. al., 2008;

ReConnecting America, 2008).

It should be noted that streetcars in Europe, often referred to as “trams,” are not functionally the

same as in North American. In general, European trams operate as both urban circulators as well as

commuter rail services. This study investigates three of these systems, including two hybrid examples

known as ‘tram-trains.’ Tram-trains, depending on track alignment, feature characteristics of both

streetcar and LRT. They are important contextually for cities, such as Halifax, that have existing

rail infrastructure. This report also investigates an example of a modern restored vintage system –

Kenosha – to explore the characteristics of service in a smaller North American market.

Streetcar

Primary application Downtown circulatorTrack alignment Mostly on city streetVehicle format Single vehicle – articulatedVehicle size 15-25 m long, ~2.40 m wide Turing radius 12-24 mStation spacing 150-500 mCommercial speed 25 km/h or less

Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Primary application Regional/urban commuterTrack alignment Mostly segregatedVehicle format Single / multiple linked vehiclesVehicle size 30+ m long, up to ~2.65 m wideTuring radius 15-30 mStation spacing 800-1500 mCommercial speed 30-100 km/h

Figure 6.0 - Modern Electric Streetcar Vehicle - Orleans

Source: urbanrail.net

Source: sacrt.com

Figure 7.0 - Light Rail Transit (LRT) Vehicle - Sacramento


Research Approach + Methodology

The potential influence streetcars have on

rejuvenating pedestrian traffic as well as

encouraging interaction with surrounding sites and

businesses is an important contextual component

of this study. Considering the HRM’s intentions

to target settlement and land development into

its urban core, the study will primarily focus on

the Halifax Peninsula. In doing so, however, it

will consider a greater contextual area, to include

secondary centres, significant corridors, commuter

travel and connectivity with existing transit.

The methodology of this study follows a case

review and investigation process. It begins with an analysis of comparator cities and their streetcar

systems. A set of factors (see Appendix) known to influence the success and feasibility of streetcars

were identified to guide and inform this process (Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates, 2007; IBI

Group, 2006; Kohn, 2000; Taylor & Fink, 2002; Taylor, 2002). Quantitative data was gathered from

sources in the bibliography and summarized in a maxtix (see Appendix). Data used in analysis

was sourced from this matrix. From an analysis the strengths and weaknesses of each comparator

are identified. These then inform the (case) investigation of Halifax and the rationale for potential

application.

The objective of the case investigation is to determine if Halifax shares enough characteristics with

its comparators to support a modern downtown streetcar. To test the rationale a route screening

identifies potential corridors for future application.

Comparator Reviews

Modern streetcars operate in an increasing number of cities. Not all of these cities are, however,

contextually relevant to an investigation of Halifax. Some cities, such as Paris, have considerably

larger populations, extensive transit systems and more expansive urban frameworks. Others, like

Galveston, Texas, have smaller populations, limited transit and a sparse urban fabric. To provide

context, comparators were screened based on their environmental similarity to Halifax, including

population, density, topography, urban form and land use. Initial screening identified 23 potential

comparators (Figure 8).

Figure 8.0 Preliminary List of Comparator Streetcar Cities


Given the time constraints of the study, these were narrowed to six – three European, three North

American:

European Comparator Cities North American Comparator Cities

Orleans, France Portland, USA Saarbrucken, Germany Tacoma, USA Karlsruhe, Germany Kenosha, USA

It is important to note that there are contextual differences in the characteristics of each comparator

and their systems. For example, there is considerable variation in the size of their total populations.

This is the case because each comparator system exhibits certain characteristics that are relevant to

the Halifax investigation. Portland, for example, has a much larger population, but is particularly

significant due to the urban development and investment that has been linked to its streetcar. This

provides insight into Halifax’s own vision for catalyzing urban development. Other characteristics

may differ for similar contextual reasons. A review of each comparator is provided below. Full

corridor and system characteristics can be found in the summary matrix (Appendix).


Population City 113,126 Metro 263,200Area (km2) City 27.48 Metro 292Density (/km2) City 4,117 Metro 901

System Length (km) 17.7 km

Configuration Commuter/circulator

Vehicle Details Alstom Citadis (2000): 22-single vehicles, 30m x 2.5m modern, low floor, overhead electric, avg. speed 24kph, max speed 80kph

Orleans, France

Figure 9.0 Spatial Analysis Map - Orleans


Orleans is located on the Loire River in central France, 130 kms southwest of Paris. Traditionally

settled as a hub along an important trade and transportation route, today the city is the prefecture

(capital) of the Loiret Departement (district). Although its core population is reasonably small

(113,126 in 1999), it supports an urban hinterland of over 150,000, making its total urban population

slightly over 263,000 (2003). The urban core of the city still exhibits its traditional medieval

characteristics, with a dense framework of buildings and narrow winding streets. Its central core is

heavily pedestrianized, featuring a number of pedestrian only corridors and limited vehicle access.

Walking dominates short distance travel within these areas. Other than the river, there are no major

topographic barriers within the city’s core.

Transportation within the region is managed by SETAO (Société d’Exploitation des Transports de

l’Agglomeration Orléanaise), the region’s multi-municipal planning and transportation authority.

Within metro Orleans SETAO operates 33 bus

lines and the streetcar. Its full system connects

21 neighboring municipalities with the city’s

central rail terminal, Gare d’Orleans.

The city’s streetcar operates on a north

south corridor, linking the Fleury les Aubrais

community and rail station in the north with

Gare d’Orleans and the city’s core, before

traversing south across the Loire to the suburb

community of La Source. In the city’s central

core the line features on-street alignment,

with vehicles operating along dedicated

pedestrianized rights-of-way as well as within

traffic (Figure 11). Outside of the city’s core

it operations, for the most part, in either a

dedicated-right of way or on a segregated

alignment. In these sections it operates

essentially as a commuter service with speeds up

to 80km/hr.

Figure 10.0 Orleans Streetcar on Grass Median

Sour

ce: u

rban

rail.

net

Sour

ce: u

rban

rail.

net

Figure 11.0 Orleans Streetcar In-Street


Since its inception, the Orléans streetcar line has seen strong ridership, and today transports over

36,000 passengers on an average weekday. This is due in large part to the lines’ operation as a

commuter service to the community of La Source, which is also the location of the Université

d’Orléans and the regional hospital. The university’s location encourages reverse commuting for

students that live elsewhere in the city.

The system also has strong connectivity to existing bus lines and regional rail service at Gare

d’Orleans and Fleury les Aubrais. Frequent service – every 6 minutes at peak times – encourages

passenger on connecting services to use the system as a downtown connector. Within the city’s core

the streetcar provides service to several destinations, including the central business district (CBD), the

restaurant and entertainment district, a hospital and a number of its more prominent shopping areas.

The system also provides service to a number of tourist attractions, including museums, historical

sites and the city’s trendy riverfront district. One of the lines' most interesting feature is its grass filled

medians, which have drawn considerable notice from urban planners.

Based on the success of the line, SETAO has approved plans for the construction of a second, east-

west line.


Karlsruhe, Germany

Population City 285,800Area (km2) City 173Density (/km2) City 1,356System Length (km) Streetcar 65

Full Rail System 400

Configuration City wide network

Vehicle Details Siemiens (1983+) – model B, 100 single vehicles, 28/38m x 2.5m, partial low floor, overhead electric, avg. speed 24km/hr, max speed 100km/hr.

Figure 12.0 Spatial Analysis Map - Karlsruhe


Karlsruhe is a local government centre and regional industrial hub located in southern Germany. It

was originally founded as the capital city, by Margrave Karl Wilhelm, of Baden-Durlach shortly after

the construction of the palace in 1715. Its location on the Rhine made it a strategic industrial and

military centre.

The central core, to the south of the palace, is the oldest part of the city and features traditional

Holy Romanic street patterns. The streets emanate outwards from a ring, centered on the palace,

in 32 spokes (Figure 15). Although much of the downtown core, including the palace, was heavily

damaged during the Second World War, it was successfully rebuilt to emulate its historic pattern.

Following the War, Karlsruhe remained a prominent industrial river port. Germany’s largest refinery is located nearby. The city’s location on the Rhine has sustained many of its heavy manufacturing jobs. It has also developed as a centre for high tech jobs, particularly in research and development, and as a regional service centre for the surrounding municipalities.

Although Karlsruhe has maintained a reasonably steady population, it nonetheless experienced, like many cities in the mid 20th century, a density shift from its central core outwards. The city has actually experienced, until recently, a loss of population in its centre since the Second World War. Unlike in many North American examples, however, Karlsruhe responded to this trend by expanding and evolving its rail and streetcar network. It used the streetcar as the primary tool to respond to and mitigate the growth of its suburbs (Stopher, 2005).

Today, transportation in Karlsruhe is highlighted by public transit use, which accounts for over 20% of daily trips within city (Stopher, 2005). The city is well known for its rail and streetcar system. The Stadtbahn Karlsruhe, also known as the tram-train, features the operation of low floor modern streetcars using both street-level and standard rail lines (Figure 13). This system has allowed the city to achieve an effective and attractive public transport system, with annual ridership of over 100 million passengers. The city has also used the tram to encourage strong densities around lines and stations.

Dual voltage railcars operate on both the high voltage electrified routes of the standard rail lines and the low voltage light rail in-street routes. Vehicles have specially designed wheels to run safely on

Sour

ce: v

irtu

alto

uris

t.com

Sour

ce: u

rban

rail.

net

Figure 13.0 Karlsruhe Tram-Train Figure 14.0 Karlsruhe Tram-Train In-Street

Figure 15.0 Karlsruhe Palace


both types of track. The benefit of this system is that it can link commuter neighborhoods on existing standard track directly with the urban core, reducing the need for transfers. This has particular significance for Halifax, which has several existing standard rail corridors.

The Karlsruhe system is centered on a circulatory line that loops around the central core and is fed by a number of linear commuter lines extending outwards. Within the city, streetcars operate at grade with automobile traffic, at a moderate speed of 23kph. On standard rail the streetcars operate as traditional commuter rail cars, with speeds up to and over 75kph. The system provides direct connections to regional and national bus and rail services, as well as to the local bus.

The streetcar serves most parts of the city’s core, including its main financial, shopping, educational and medical centres. It also provides direct service to the city’s main soccer stadium, as well as to other leisure destinations, such as its parks and community centres.


The City of Saarbrucken is the capital of Saarland, a small state in south west of Germany on

the border with France. The city has an urban population of approximately 180,000, with a

hinterland of approximately 170,000. Saarbrucken is home to the regional parliament as well as

Saarland University, with approximately 17,000 students. Originally established as an industrial

city, Saarbrucken has seen most of its primary and heavy industry disappear. It is now a regional

commercial centre for Saarland as well as the neighboring French region to the west.

Like many European cities, Saarbrucken established streetcar systems in the late 19th and early 20th

century. Unlike many European cities, however, Saarbrucken followed the North American example

and in 1965 dismantled its system in favor of a more comprehensive bus system.

In the early 90’s the city was facing increasing levels of congestion. In response, the city’s public

transportation operator made the decision to reemphasize public transportation. New policy was

Saarbrucken, GermanyPopulation City 180,500 Metro 350,000Area (km2) City 167Density (/km2) City 1,080System Length (km) Streetcar 11.5

Full Rail System 44

Configuration

Commuter/circulator

Vehicle Details Bombardier Flexity, 18 single vehicles, 37m x 2.46m, modern low floor, overhead wires, avg. speed 25kph, max speed 80+kph.

Figure 16.0 Spatial Analysis Map - Saarbrucken


established that aimed to increase the public transportation mode split from 17% to 25% (Hass-Klau,

2002). One of the first things the city did was investigate a new streetcar system, as both a stimulus

for downtown revitalization as well as a high capacity transit mode. The city looked at the Karlsruhe

tram-train model and concluded that it could make use of over 180 kms of existing rail. Unlike

Karlsruhe, however, Saarbrucken did not have an active light rail or streetcar system on which to

base its joint use plan. The advantage was that Saarbrucken did not have to conform to obsolete track

standards of a predecessor system, and instead laid new track to accommodate modern low floor

vehicle standards.

In 1997 the city opened the initial segment of its tram-train, the Saarbahn (Figure 17). The Saarbahn,

like the Karlsruhe system, operates as a streetcar in the downtown core, with over 5kms of in-street

alignment, and then as a more traditional commuter train outside in the suburb communities. This

initial segment, 14.5km in length, featured 16 stations, seven of which were outside of the urban area

along existing heavy rail lines. It ran from the city’s central train station, where it connected with

regional rail and local bus service, through the city’ downtown and south across the German-French

border to the French town of Saaraguemines. This project included the adaptation of several types of

rail infrastructure; use of AC voltage railroad, laying track in paved city thoroughfares, and use and

electrification of a railroad freight branch line to 750 vDC. In contrast to Karlsruhe, the city selected

Sour

ce: v

irtu

alto

uris

t.com

Figure 17.0 Saarbrucken Streetcar In-Street


railroad profile track, wheels and flanges, allowing

the vehicles to go anywhere on standard rail. The

disadvantage is in wider flangeways on street trackage

which has a greater tendency to cause pedestrian

tripping (Phraner,1999). Saarbrucken was also the

first system of its kind to operate on track owned by

separate countries. Today, Saarbrucken provides a

strong example of the evolution of dual use rail-transit

technology.

All Saarbahn (and bus) stops are equipped with real time

information and CCTV displays. Local bus service has

been timed to connect with tram-train along the route.

As a result, riders are able to plan, in real-time, their

entire trip.

In terms of cost, the federal Government contributed

60% of capital construction costs, while the regional

government, with some contribution from the operating

company, bore the majority of the costs of the vehicle

purchases.

In planning the initial line the city forecast an initial

ridership of 19,000 passengers per day. The actual first

month saw 25,000 daily passengers, exceeding the

forecast by 32%. A year following its completion (1998)

daily ridership was up to 28,169, and by 1999 it had

reached 29,496 (Hass-Klau, 2002). Today ridership

has risen to over 45,000 passengers per day, while

automobile use has been reduced by 3% in both the city

and its suburban areas (WYTA, 2006).

The success of the initial line encouraged the city to move ahead with its plans to expand the system.

By 2001 three additions had extended the line to a total length of 28km, linking the nearby town of

Riegelsberg, with plans to extend the network regionally. The service features direct connections to

the city’s primary rail stations, Saarbrucken Hbf and Saarbrucken Ost. At these points passengers are

able to transfer to traditional rail with service throughout Germany and Europe. There are also strong

linkages to the city’s bus system. The line provides service parallel to the city’s main pedestrianized

shopping district, Bahnhofstrasse, as well as to the numerous pubs, restaurants, bars and shops of the

St. Johanner Markt and Nauwieser Viertel district.

Figure 18.0 Saarbrucken Streetcar In-Street

Source: virtualtourist.com


Saarbrucken’s system is particularly helpful as an example for Halifax for a number of reasons. It

has a very similar population and density as Halifax. It developed as a small industrial city whose

growth was very much influenced by its streetcar system. Like Halifax, it also abandoned its streetcar

system entirely and continued its local transit service with buses. Saarbrucken is also trying to

cope with congestion, air quality deficiencies, the city’s economic transition to a mix of technical

and educational institutions, and the destabilization of blue-collar jobs, all while grappling with an

eroding tax base (Phraner,1999).


Portland, United States

Population City 568.400 Metro 2,159,720Area (km2) City 347Density (/km2) City 1,6,38

System Length (km) 6.47Configuration Downtown circulator

Vehicle Details Inekon-Skoda (2001) 10 single vehicles 20m x 2.46m modern low floor overhead wires avg. speed 24kph.

Figure 19.0 Spatial Analysis Map - Portland


Portland is the largest city in Oregon and the third largest in the Pacific Northwest, after Vancouver,

BC , and Seattle, WA. Incorporated in 1851, Portland traditionally relied on agricultural and primary

resource based industry. Since then it has grown rapidly into a metropolitan city and is now the

commercial centre for the State of Oregon.

Portland is well known for its reputation as a green, well-planned city, due in large part to its

regional planning and governance body, Metro (Oregon Regional Government). Part of the Metro’s

mandate is the planning and operation of the regional transportation system. It is also the body that

is responsible for the Regional Master Plan, the document that has guided Portland with a strong

emphasis on transit-orientated development (JPACT [A], 2008). This approach promotes mixed-use

and high-density development around light-rail stops and transit centers. It also directs investment of

the metropolitan area’s share of federal tax dollars into multi-modal transportation, including regional

rail, bus and streetcar (Figure 22).

Planning for modern light rail first began in Portland in the mid 70’s, in response to strong opposition

to proposed new highway construction. Plans were developed for a light rail transit line running

from downtown Portland to the suburbs of Gresham (Halperin 1987). The 24km line opened in

1986 under the name MAX (Metropolitan Area Express). Since its development the city has seen

progressive expansion of its network. In 1998 a second 29 km line was extended west, in 2001 a

third line to the airport and more recently a fourth line opened north connecting the Expo Centre.

Centered around Portland’s core, and linked directly to the MAX network, is Portland’s downtown

streetcar (Figure 23). Opened in 2001, this central city link connects the northwest downtown core

with the Pearl District, Portland State University (PSU) and the Southwest Waterfront re-development

area where it links with the Portland Aerial Tram. Originally constructed as a 3.8km loop running

along parallel streets (7.6 km track length), it has since had three extensions to its current length of

6.47km (10.8km track length). Along its existing route the streetcar features service to the Legacy

Good Samaritan Hospital, the Central Library, Art Museum, the galleries and shops of the Pearl

Figure 20.0 Downtown Portland

Sour

ce: w

ikim

edia

com

mon

s

Source: lightrailnow.orgSour

ce: t

rain

web

.com

Figure 21.0 Portland MAX Figure 22.0 New Portland MAX Vehicle with Bus


District and downtown, PSU and Oregon Health

and Science University (via the Aerial Tram). The

streetcar’s alignment makes creative use of public

and private property, when it cuts diagonally

across city blocks instead of following the city’s

standard grid system (Figure 24).

Portland is also well known for its progressive

approach to pedestrian movement. Its

downtown core features several large pedestrian

only squares, a transit only downtown main

street (First Ave.), as well as numerous traffic

calming measures designed to discourage

car movement in the urban core. Downtown

Portland also features a fare free zone, where

passengers can ride the Streetcar and MAX for

free throughout the zone. The result has been

increased transit ridership, while at the same

time reduced road space and parking demand

within the city’s urban core (Nelson-Nygaard,

2007). In effect, through aggressive transit

orientated development the city has not only

improved its overall transit system, but in doing

so has made its urban core a desirable place to

live and work. Developers have recognized this

attraction and have responded with investment

targeted directly along the streetcar’s alignment

(Figure 25, 26).

Figure 23.0 Portland Streetcar

Figure 24.0 Portland Streetcar Crossing PSU CampusSo

urce

: flic

kr c

omm

ons

Sour

ce: d

ownt

ownt

rolly

.org

Percent of CBD Development Based UponDistance from Streetcar

Post 1997

Pre 1997

1 Block2 Blocks

3 Blocks3+ Blocks

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Source: ED Hovee & Company,Portland Streetcar Development Impacts

October 2005 Source: ED Hovee & Company,Portland Streetcar Development Impacts, October 2005

Figure 26.0 Percent of CBD Development Based Upon Distance from Streetcar

Figure 25.0 Growth in Building Density Based Upon Distance from Streetcar


Portland’s streetcar is well known for the

effects it has had on secondary development

and investment along its alignment. Property

values along the streetcar line, for example,

have increased by upwards of 40%, while total

resulting private investment has since exceeded

$3 billion (Braund, D., et. al. 2008; Cramption,

G 2003; Nelson-Nygaard, 2007). Not only

has this investment been dramatic, but also it

has taken place directly along the streetcar’s

alignment. Realized development (floor-

area ratio) within one block of the streetcar is

now 90% higher than in blocks farther away

(Condon, 2008). The streetcar has been so

successful in catalyzing development that after

1997 (the year the streetcar was approved)

55% of all new downtown development has

taken place within a one-block distance from

its alignment (Condon, 2008). “While much

of this investment may have happened without

a streetcar, the new line expedited and shaped

the development patterns, producing a clear

and positive return on the public investment”

(Nelson-Nygaard, 2007).

Figure 27.0 Development Along Portland Streetcar Route(Pearl District)

Sour

ce: r

ailw

aypr

eser

vati

on.c

om


Tacoma, United StatesFigure 28.0 Spatial Analysis Map - Tacoma

Population City 202,700Area (km2) City 162.2Density (/km2) City 1,538

System Length (km) 2.57Configuration Downtown link/ connector

Vehicle Details Inekon-Skoda (2001) 3 single vehicles, 20m x 2.46m modern low floor, overhead wires avg. speed 21kph.


Tacoma is a coastal city located in Washington State’s Puget Sound, approximately 51 kms southwest of Seattle. With a population of approximately 200,000 it is the third largest city in the state.

The City was incorporated in 1875, as the planned western terminus of the Transcontinental Railroad. Completed in 1887, the railroad brought considerable growth to the region. Tacoma’s population jumped from 1,098 in 1880 to 36,000 in 1890. The railroad was also a primary engine in the growth of the Port of Tacoma, now one of the largest on the Pacific coast.

As it grew, Tacoma, like many North American cities, extended streetcar lines out from its core into its residential suburbs. By 1912 the city boasted 30 streetcar lines, with over 200 kms of track, as well as an electric interurban rail connection north to Seattle. The city also operated a cable car that linked the streetcar to the ferry system to the city’s north.

In the early 20th century, increasing government subsidies for road construction made it more difficult to operate the streetcar. With the construction of US 99 (now Insterstate-5) the Interurban line between Tacoma and Seattle saw ridership drop nearly 40%. The last streetcars in Tacoma ran April 8th, 1938, replaced by a fleet of more maneuverable and cheaper busses.

By the 1980s the region was facing a considerable increase in traffic. Political pressure led to a referendum that approved Sound Move, a multiple county transportation package that established Sound Transit, the regional transportation authority. To address the issue of increasing costs associated with automobile traffic, Sound Transit made a commitment to enhancing public transportation options, and moved ahead with ambitious commuter and light rail projects.

One of these projects was the Tacoma Link, a 2.57km line that provides service between downtown and commuter train and bus services at the Tacoma Dome Station (Figure 29). The line, opened in August 2003, provides free and frequent service, every 10 minutes Monday – Saturday and every 10-20 minutes on Sundays. Five in-street stops service a number of destinations, including the Tacoma Dome Station, the University of Washington - Tacoma, the Tacoma Convention Center, Tacoma’s Central Business District (CBD) and its Museum and Theater Districts .

One of the strengths of the line is its connection to the Sounder commuter rail (service to Seattle), and express and local bus services. At the Tacoma Dome station commuters transfer to Tacoma Link that provides service to major employment in the city’s core. Regional bus service, including Pierce Transit and Greyhound busses also transfer. Tacoma Dome Station also has considerable park n’ ride facilities for drivers accessing downtown. As a result, ridership has been much higher than expected, and by 2004 had already exceeded its 2010 projections (Bundy, 2005).

Although the line is short, it has nonetheless had a significant impact on the city’s urban development. Studies have shown that the city has seen over 680 million dollars in targeted secondary investment since the line’s development (HDR, 2007).

Figure 29.0 Tacoma Dome Streetcar Station Figure 30.0 Tacoma Link Streetcar - Downtown Source: wikimedia commons Source: oldrails.com


Kenosha is located in southeast Wisconsin, on the western shore of Lake Michigan. With an estimated

population of around 97,000 Kenosha is the fourth-largest city in Wisconsin after Milwaukee,

Madison, and Green Bay. It is located between Milwaukee, 51 km north, and Chicago, Illinois,

80 km south.

Traditionally, Kenosha was an industrial town. In the late 19th century, with the construction of the Illinois

Parallel Railroad, it became an important Great Lakes Shipping port. Early in the 20th century Kenosha

became host to a number of automobile manufacturing companies, including Jeffery and American

Motors, later sold to Chrysler. With the decline in American auto production in the late 20th century

Kenosha lost the majority of its manufacturing jobs, including its primary Chrysler auto plant. Although

the assembly of some engines continues in Kenosha, it is now primarily a regional service centre.

Kenosha, United States

Population City 96,845Area (km2) City 61.7Density (/km2) City 1,569System Length (km) Streetcar 2.57

Configuration Downtown circulator

Vehicle Details 5 single heritage cars refurbished art deco era PPC overhead wires avg. speed 16-21kph

Figure 31.0 Spatial Analysis Map - Kenosha


Transportation in Kenosha has a rich history, dating back to the construction of the first regional

railways. Rail service first linked Kenosha to Chicago in 1855. Today Kenosha’s central train station

is the terminus on Chicago’s Metra (Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation)

North Line, with service to downtown Chicago (Figure 31). Plans are in place to extend service

north to Milwaukee with a light commuter rail through Kenosha. Regional bus also serves Kenosha’s

downtown Metra station, including express bus which connects with Milwaukee (City of Kenosha [A],

2006).

At the local level the City of Kenosha operates seven bus routes that radiate from the central Metra

terminal. There are also three other bus routes offering service to major commercial, industrial and

educational centres outside of the city. The City also operates the Kenosha Streetcar. Opened in

2000, it was the first new streetcar system in the United States since their decline in the early 20th

century.

Kensoha’s downtown streetcar, conceived as a 2.74km single-track circulator loop, connects the

city’s old downtown district with the Metra station (Figure 32). The streetcar was planned from the

beginning as a central part of the Harborfront redevelopment project, a 70-acre re-development

plot on the former Chrysler auto plant site (Figure 34). It also serves several municipal buildings,

a growing retail district, and the regional library and museum. The municipality operates five

refurbished heritage streetcars along the line.

Track runs along a grass median and shoulder for about three quarters its length, and in the street for

its remainder. The right-of-way features a design with tracks embedded in turf. The track sections are

surrounded by geotextile filter fabric, and contain a layer of topsoil over the crossties and up to the

rail to facilitate vegetation growth. The net effect is nearly invisible trackage embedded in attractive

verdant landscaping (Figure 33).

Kenosha is one of the smallest cities in United States with an operational streetcar system (though

numerous cities of its size operated them in the pre-automobile era). Although service is limited

Figure 32.0 Kenosha Metra Station Figure 33.0 Kenosha Streetcar

Sour

ce: t

rain

web

.org

Source: lightrailnow.org

Figure 34.0 Kenosha Harbourfront Development Lands

Sour

ce: h

erit

aget

rolle

y.or

g


0

375000

750000

1125000

1500000

Streetcar

LRT

Chart 15

1,500,000

1,125,000

750,000

375,000

0Streetcar LRT

Population

1,500,000

1,125,000

750,000

375,000

0

(daytime weekday service only), the city has seen dramatic secondary investment along its

corridor, particularly in the Harbourfront redevelopment area that has benefited from over $175m

in secondary investment since the streetcar (HDR Ltd., 2007). As a result, the city has recently

authorized a study for the expansion of streetcar service to the city’s uptown business districts, an

area in which the City would like to encourage development (City of Kenosha [B], 2006).

Observations + Analysis

A review of these comparator systems provides

important context regarding the application

of streetcars in Halifax. Each system exhibits

characteristics that reflect conditions found

within Halifax. This section details these

characteristics. In doing so, it establishes

the basic rationale from which the Halifax

investigation and route screening draws. To

best support this rationale, information, where

applicable, is also presented from secondary

sources and examples.

Total Population

Streetcar systems are found in cities with a

range of populations, for example, as large as

Berlin (pop. 3,416,300), and as small as Gorlitz,

Germany (pop. 57,111). During the initial

screening of comparators 16 streetcar systems

were found to operate in cities with total urban

populations less than 200,000 (Figure 34).

This suggests that the required total population

for streetcar system is much less than that of

traditional LRT, which is North America is on

average 1.08 million (Figure 36). This is due,

in part, to the redistributive nature of modern

streetcar systems. Saarbrucken, for example,

has daily ridership of 45,000 with a (500m)

catchment population of only 30,000. These

forms of rail transit rely, in part, on bus and

Figure 35.0 Comparator City Populations

Figure 36.0 Average Population of North American Cities with LRT Systems Compared to Average Population of Initially Screened Cities with Streetcars


other commuter rail to provide riders. Another

example, Tacoma, relies on transfers from the

Sounder commuter rail for up to 25% of its daily

ridership. This is less the case in Europe, where

streetcars have evolved over time to incorporate

much more of a balance between commuter

and circulation service. Whatever the case, in

both Europe and North America, streetcars are

successfully operating in cities with comparable

or lower populations than that of Halifax.

Population Density

Total population is often a misleading factor

to use in transit analysis. High populations

dispersed over large areas, for example, may

not be as beneficial to particular services as

smaller condensed populations. In this sense,

population density provides a more applicable

measurement. Once again, there was

considerable variation in the initial screening

of comparators. Lisbon, Portugal, for example,

has a population density of over 6,300/km2,

while New Orleans only 512/km2. This range,

however, provides little context considering

the geographic areas of each city. To provide

better context, cities with comparatively small

and large urban areas were disregarded. Of

the comparators selected, Karlsruhe has the

highest urban density at 1,648/km2, while

Orleans has the lowest at 901/km2. The average

Figure 37.0 Comparator City Population Densities

urban density of the selected comparator cities

is 1,346/km2 (Figure 37). Halifax’s Census

Metropolitan Area (CMA) has a density of 1077/

km2, while its more urbanized core has a density

of 1,903/km2.

What is also important, within this context,

is transit ridership demand on a particular

corridor or area, as opposed to a regional

population. Catchment densities, in this sense,

provide a clear idea as to how many passengers

are directly served by a system. Orleans, for

example, has a 500m-catchment density of

3,400/km2 along its streetcar corridor (Figure

38). A direct correlation between streetcar

service and areas of higher average density was

observed in all comparator.

Connectivity to Transportation Infrastructure

Perhaps one of the most definitive trends

examined in the comparator systems is their

connectivity to transit infrastructure and services.

All systems exhibited centralization around

major transit nodes, with direct connections to

regional and local transit services. Saarbrucken

Figure 38.0 Comparator City Catchment Densities

Streetcars were observed to operate in corridors with higher population densities.


and Karlsruhe both had streetcar platforms within their primairy regional rail stations, while Orleans,

Kenosha and Tacoma had stations built next to existing regional hubs. Portland has shared stations

with its regional MAX LRT services. All comparators had direct linkages to local bus routes.

Portland’s streetcar has direct linkages to all MAX LRT commuter lines.

The level of connectivity of streetcar systems with other transit is linked to the effectiveness of

its services and level of ridership. This is particularly the case in cities, such as Saarbrucken and

Karlsruhe, where the streetcar connects two or more major transit hubs. This effectively provides a

link that not only caters to intra-city commuters, but also regional and inter-city travelers. In these

examples, as well as in Orleans, passengers can board a streetcar at many downtown locations

and travel considerable distances outside of the urban core, even across international boarders. In

the American examples, ridership is dependant on commuter rail and bus transfers. Minimizing

transfer times was found to be key to attracting passengers. The ability to use a transfer ticket or

travel card, as is the case in all comparators except Kenosha, is perhaps one of the strongest factors in

determining passenger ridership and attractiveness (Crampton, 2002).

In Saarbrucken buses are coordinated with streetcar arrival times, and real-time CCTV screens

provide arrival and departure information. Effective transit connections and accessible land use

patterns improve a transit systems total ridership by making transit more appealing to consumers.

Urban Connectivity – Service to Downtown Cores, Major Destinations

In addition to strong transit connectivity, all comparator systems exhibited a strong connection

with the downtown core, as well as with major destinations throughout each city. Core service,

whether through circulator or linear-commuter service, is an important component of all systems. It

centralizes the transit system and helps capture not only home-work commuter trips, but also non-

home based day trips which can be a considerable component of any city’s total trips.

Service to major destinations is key to establishing strong ridership, effective service and to

encouraging agglomeration of businesses and services (Edwards

& Mackett, 1996; Mackett & Sutcliffe, 2003). Comparators

systems exhibited strong connectivity to major financial and

business districts. In Portland, Tacoma, Orleans and Karlsruhe

the streetcar is strongly integrated into university and college

campuses. Major hospitals and government office were also

found to have close proximity in the majority of comparators.

In Karlsruhe, Orleans, Portland and Tacoma, stations directly

serve major sporting arenas. In all comparators there are also

strong connections to entertainment and shopping districts,

above all in the European cases. It should be noted, however,

that the majority of major shopping destinations (malls) in the

Figure 39.0 Busy Streetcar Neighbourhood Amsterdam

Sour

ce: w

ikim

edia

com

mon

s


American examples are located well outside of the downtown and even urban cores. Finally, in all

comparators there are also particular strong connections to tourist destination. The Kenosha, Orleans

and Saarbrucken lines provide service to a number of popular water front features, while in Tacoma

and Portland they feature service to museum and theater districts.

Livability – Walkability – Quality of Life

Transportation and quality of life are not unrelated – public opinion polls reveal that being struck

in traffic is often the first on the list among factors that are blamed for a declining quality of urban

living (Cervero, 2006). Cutting out commute times from daily life can have a tremendous affect on

quality of life – through increased availability of time, accessibility, the reduction of related stress and

a reduced ecological footprint. Quality of life is an increasingly influential factor that is driving the

location choices of families and businesses (Figure 39). Streetcars, in this sense, have been used to

draw settlement into areas that offer the benefits and quality of life improvements associated with a

shorter commute.

Dr. John Holtzclaw from the Sierra Club has extensively reviewed the relationship between rail transit

and land development. His conclusions suggest that land development accompanied with transit

allow shorter trips, and more pleasant, safe and interesting walks (Holtzclaw, 2000). Such areas

offer pedestrian-friendly neighborhood design with wide sidewalks, weather and traffic protection

for pedestrians, a completed walkway grid

offering alternative routes, and stores close to

the sidewalk rather than being set back behind

parking lots. In Portland, the Pearl district has

developed in this way, and has been revived as

not only an attractive place to live but also as an

in-demand workplace for many artisans and small

businesses. Development along the harbour front

in Kenosha has also evolved in much the same

way, with a dense new urbanist community in

close proximity to the streetcar. Studies show

that residents of such areas walk and take transit

25-50% more than residents of suburban areas

(Holtzclaw, 2000). Streetcars, in this context,

facilitate land-use development that encourages

walkability and a reduced dependence on the

automobile.

Car restriction measures, such as length of

pedestrianized street and minimal amounts of city

Figure 40.0 The Lisbon Streetcar: operates on slopes of to 12% on steel tracks

Sour

ce: fl

ickr

com

mon

s


centre car parking, were also important explanatory variables in public transport performance. They

too can be taken as providing key underlying elements of a successful public transport and light rail

strategy, but require local government with the political will to risk alienating motorists by reducing

road and parking capacity. Evidence from Saarbrucken suggests that it is a long process to create a

strong public transport culture that can attract car owners into everyday transit commuting (Crampton,

2002).

Topography

Streetcars are limited by the geographic profile of the environment in which they operate. Steep

slopes and features limit the feasibility of implementation. Although the majority of the comparator

cities are relatively flat, they do exhibit some challenging topographic features. In Orleans the

streetcar had to cross the river. To avoid the cost of constructing a new bridge the city converted

two lanes of an existing bridge into a dedicated right-of-way. In Saarbrucken there were some slope

considerations (6-7%), although under the maximum operational capability of modern streetcar

rolling stock – 9-10% slope. One of the most robust findings was that physical constraints or

technical capability played very little roles in streetcar performance (Figure 40), or its recent growth

(Crampton, 2002). Advances in rail technology have increased the capabilities of modern streetcar

vehicles.

Economic Development Impacts

Economic development resulting from streetcars refers to a community’s progress towards economic

goals. In particular these include increased investment and business activity, productivity,

employment, income, property values, and tax revenue. Streetcars can provide a variety of economic

development benefits (Holtzclaw, 2000; Crampton, 2003; Diaz, 1999; Hass-Klau & Crampton, 2004;

Litman, 2008). These benefits are summarized below.

Travel by streetcar requires less land for roads and parking than automobile travel, thus, streetcars can

catalyst more accessible land use patterns, the basis of transit orientated development (VTPI, 2002).

Research suggests that, as a result of these land use changes, each passenger kilometer of rail-based

transit results in between 1.4 and 9 kms in reduced automobile travel (Holtzclaw, 2000). .

In all comparator systems, where information was available, households within 300-600 m proximity

of streetcar lines reduced their automobile use. The city of Saarbrucken, for example, witnessed a 3%

decrease in total private car use following the introduction of the Saarbahn (WYPTA, 2006). Carmen

Hass-Klau and Graham Cramption confirm this in an economic impact review of 15 light rail and

streetcar projects in which they found that car ownership had dropped within a 600m buffer in all 15

cases studied (2004). This pattern, they argue, is not the case in cities with only bus transit (2004).


Post 1997

Pre 1997

1 Block2 Blocks

3 Blocks3+ Blocks

80

60

40

20

0

Realized Densities

Since the announcement of the Portland Streetcar (1997), the City has worked closely with developers to acheive considerably higher densities within proximity to the streetcar line and stations. These levels have been acheived through the provision of incentives, such as reduced parking requirments and density bonuses.

The densest networks (in terms of total track length per capita) also tend to perform better, and those

in cities whose centres were amply supplied with car parking perform worse (Cramption, 2002).

From this we can conclude that an efficient streetcar system can effect real change to automobile

use and commuting behavior. This research also suggests that streetcars are more effective than

busses in attracting discretionary riders. These observations have important policy implications

concerning the provision of parking in Halifax’s urban core. Through reducing the use and ownership

of automobiles, Halifax can effectively consider reductions to parking requirements in areas served

by streetcars. Reduced parking requirements can be used as incentive for targeted development and

investment.

Generally speaking, when compared directly to bus transit on similar routes, streetcars enjoy 40%

higher ridership (Nelson-Nygaard, 2007). By increasing transit ridership, attracting discretionary

travelers and reducing automobile congestion, streetcars realize parking and consumer cost savings.

Essentially, streetcars shift consumer expenditures away from vehicles and fuel consumption, thus

increase buying power, making the region more productive and competitive (Litman et. al., 2002).

Reduced expenditure on automobiles and higher ridership on transit also results in more local

economic activity realized through increased transit service employment and reduced financial

exports from fuel purchases.

Source: ED Hovee & Company,Portland Streetcar Development Impacts, October 2005

Figure 41.0 Percent of Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) Realized Based Upon Distance from Streetcar


Research also shows that integrating housing and transit can yield real household economic gains

(Cervero, 2006). For example, in Portland housing and transportation account for 51% of average

household earnings, compared to that of Atlanta (55%) and Miami (58%) where transit services are

not as integrated with housing and development. These savings act as real incentives for households

to locate along transit.

In addition to cost savings and efficiency gains, the streetcar’s accessibility and permanence enhances

the attractiveness of nearby property, increasing its potential for a more intense and valuable use.

Property owners develop vacant parcels in order to capitalize on the proximity to transit, with

increased pedestrian accessibility, market penetration and access to employment (Diaz, 1999). In

other cases, existing lower densities are upgraded to higher density uses. These conversions, and new

developments impart considerable additional value to property. In Portland, for example, property

values close to the streetcar were 10% higher than those three blocks away (Hass-Klau & Crampton,

2004). Similar relationships were observed in Tacoma and Kenosha. These findings correspond with

research by Roderick Diaz, that links property value increases (between 3% and 40%) with rail transit

accessibility (1999). This relationship has also been observed in several European cities with streetcar

systems (DB, 2001).

Other studies have shown similar results concerning the value of commercial properties (Ohland,

2007). This correlation, Diaz argues, is due to a number of factors, including better access to

employment, stronger pedestrian accessibility, market penetration and positive economic investment

(Diaz, 1999). These factors increase the attractiveness of private streetcar-orientated development.

With the potential to capture the benefit of higher property rents, the private sector becomes more

willing to invest (Ohland, 2007).

From the comparator cities observed it can be concluded that there is positive correlation between

streetcar investment and property development, particularly in North American. Portland, for

example, has seen secondary investment of over $3 billion, Tacoma over $680 million and Kenosha

over $175 million (Adams & Powell, 2008; HDR, 2007). In the case of Portland, almost all of this

investment has been made within 2 city blocks of the streetcar (Adams & Powell, 2008). Quite

remarkably, the City has seen its CBD shift geographically a couple of blocks closer to the streetcar

(see Figure 25), with 55% of all new financial development occurring within 1 block of the line

(Adams & Powell, 2008).

The Portland case has been a direct result of transit investment coupled with progressive development

policy, which include reductions to parking requirements, height and density incentives and increased

Figure 42.0 Development Along the Portland Streetcar Line Source: flickr commons


business stakeholder involvement through development agreements linked to transit provision. The

result has been the development of over 10,000 housing units and 5.4 million sq. feet of office space

(Figure 42). In Kenosha, the streetcars’ development was directly linked to a large land development

project through a development agreement. The city was able to increase transit provisions, enhance

overall transit ridership, and revitalize a large harbour front brownfield site. Meanwhile, the

developer was able to realize the advantage of higher building densities, lower parking requirements

and the attractiveness of integrated fixed transit.

The American streetcars’ ability to raise property values and catalyze development has important

consequences on the ability of a city to raise funds. Tried and true value-capture strategies, including

property and sales taxes, real-estate lease and sales revenues, farebox revenues, and parking and

business license fees, have meant increases in municipal revenues (Ohland, 2007).

While some research suggests that these impacts are perhaps more redistributive that generative, it

nonetheless makes a strong case for targeted strategic investment – that is, new infrastructure to shift

development that would have happened elsewhere to a particular corridor or district. This idea has

particular relevance for the HRM, given its stated desire to direct development towards the harbour

front areas of the Peninsula, and away from the reality of an expanding suburban fringe (HRM, 2008).

Prof. Robert Cervero, Chair of the Department of City and Regional Planning at University of

California – Berkley, makes a strong argument in his paper, Economic Growth in Urban Regions:

Implications for Future Transportation, that cities must use smart and targeted transportation policies

and investments if they are to remain globally competitive for skilled labour and investment. He

argues that in the new economy increasingly mobile industry and business respond to global

competition between urban centres. Knowledge based industries rely on agglomerations to facilitate

face-to-face transactions and to offer clustered financial and professional business services (Storper

and Manville, 2006). Cervero argues that intelligent urban transportation is a means to catalyst and

sustain the necessary and targeted agglomeration that makes a city competitive (2006).


Case Investigation – Halifax

Drawing from the observation and analysis discussed above, the report now examines the Halifax environment and its potential to support modern streetcars. To develop an understanding of the city’s potential, internal characteristics are detailed as either supportive (the strengths) or unsupportive (the weaknesses) to the application of modern streetcars. The major external factors – opportunities and constraints – are then reviewed to better contextualize the potential future environment in Halifax. Taking into account this rationale, potential routes are screened, before an analysis weighs the streetcar and its alternatives against the goals of the study.

Halifax Profile

Considering the research approach of this study, the Halifax investigation focuses primarily on the

city’s urban core area (the CMA less more distant communities, such as Bedforsd and Sackville) , with

alignment considerations on the Halifax Peninsula. The geographic boundary of the urban core was

determined based on Census Canada's population data, Google Earth Imagry of built up areas and

the city's planning documents. It is designed to illustrate the primairy built up area and population

of the HRM. Consideration is also made to the Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) as the city’s greater

commuter and labour shed.

Halifax Urban - Central Metropolitian Area (CMA)

Urban Core AreaHalifax Peninsula

Figure 45.0 Population Density (/km2)

Figure 44.0 Population (000’s)

Figure 43.0 Area (km2)


Halifax, Canada

Figure 46.0 Spatial Analysis Map - Halifax


Strengths

By most accounts Halifax has preformed well

over the past several years. Its population has

increased (10% between 1991 to 2001), its

employment has grown (20% between 1993 –

2003 while unemployment has remained low

(6.7% in 2003) (Gardner-Pinfold, 2004). These

trends are indicative of the city’s sustained

importance as a regional economic, political and

civic centre in the Atlantic economy, and its

attractiveness as a destination for settlement and

employment. Over the past 30 years alone, for

example, Halifax’s population has grown by 40%,

while its employment has expanded by 65%.

Today, Halifax’s Central Metropolitan Area – CMA

(HRM less its rural areas) has a total population

of 282,900, with an urban core population (less

its more extended suburbs, such as Bedford)

of 202,600 and a city core population (Halifax

Peninsula) of over 62,000 (Census of Canada

[A], 2006). Within these areas are population

densities of 1077/km2, 1903/km2 and 3220/

km2, the latter being of particular significance

considering the research approach of this study

(See Figures 43-45). Considering the cities

compared earlier, the urban population and

density of Halifax, particularly the core, would

suggest an environment that would be supportive

of modern streetcars (Figure 47, 48). Halifax’s

core density is comparable to that of Orleans and

Saarbrucken, and greater than that of Kenosha

and Tacoma.

The Peninsula’s total population is particularly

noteworthy considering 81% of its resident’s

journey to workplaces on the Peninsula (Burgess,

2008). With a participation rate of 68.1% (2006)

this equates to over 34,000 daily home-work

Figure 47.0 Populations: Comparator Cities + Halifax

Figure 48.0 Desnity: Comparator Cities + Halifax

Figure 49.0


trips on the Peninsula. It is also important to

note that the Census counts permanent residents.

This is relevant considering the high proportional

numbers of students on the Peninsula, which

inflates the population during the academic

school year. Census Canada does not take into

account the seasonal student population, which,

discussed below, represents a significant transit

market on the Peninsula.

In terms of the economy, Halifax serves as the

business, banking, government and cultural

centre for the Atlantic region. The regional

municipality’s economy sustains slightly under

200,000 jobs, centred on six key economic

sectors: education, health care, public

administration, defence, industry and financial

services (including real estate and insurance).

The Peninsula accounts for almost half of these

jobs (Gardner-Pinfold, 2004). Perhaps one of the

most noticeable observations within Halifax is

the central location of a number of these sectors,

particularly education, health care and business-

finance. This provides a strong rationale for the

improvement of not only commuter services to

access these jobs, but also for effective circulation

services to better connect them.

At its heart, Halifax’s downtown (the central

business district) is home to over 1,800 businesses

and is the destination for over 24,000 employees

(DHBC, 2008). Nearby, the universities

(excluding Mount St. Vincent) employ over 5,000,

the hospitals over 11,000 and the navy and port

facilities over 10,000 on the Peninsula (Gardner-

Pinfold, 2004). The spatial agglomeration of

such employers and services is a key strength

of Halifax (Figure 50). For a circulator service

(such as a streetcar) it facilitates the redistribution

of commuters arriving on feeder services, such

Figure 50.0

Figure 51.0


as ferry and express bus services. In close

proximity they also facilitate mid-day work and

non-work related trips. In Halifax, trips such as

these account for 23% of total daily transit trips

(Burgess, 2008).

In addition to being the regional economy with

an agglomeration of key services, it also has the

benefit of being a very cost competitive city for

business (Figure 51). Recently, KPMG, a leading

global financial auditor, rated Halifax first in

North America among mid-sized cities for overall

cost competitiveness. They estimated Halifax to

have a 1.6% cost advantage over the Canadian

city average and a 16.1% cost advantage over the

USA (KPMG, 2008). Halifax’s competitiveness

relative to North America is particularly

important considering its plans for encouraging

economic development and investment. The

streetcar, in this sense, could potentially direct

investment and development to key areas, as was

done in Portland, Tacoma and Kenosha.

Within this context, another appealing

characteristic of Halifax is the skill of its labour

force. In recent studies the HRM has ranked

among the top cities in North America in terms

of both creativity and education. Halifax is also

a key Canadian research city and, with three

times the Canadian national average of per

capita students, a destination for post-secondary

education (DHBC, 2008). The Peninsula’s post-

secondary student population is 26,000 (Figure

50). A highly skilled and educated labour force

and a large student population further strengthen

the potential for business investment within

the city’s core. Students, with low automobile

ownership and high mobility, represent a strong

market for improving transit ridership from

service and capacity enhancements.

Figure 52.0

Figure 53.0


Halifax also has a number of key downtown shopping destinations, including Spring Garden Road

and Barrington Street (Figure 52). These areas offer vibrant street front shopping, entertainment and

dining opportunities. These also encourage pedestrian activity, which has been increasing over the

past number of years. In 2004, for example, the Downtown Halifax Business Commission completed

a Downtown Pedestrian Study, comparing pedestrian counts from 1995. Results showed significant

growth in pedestrian activity throughout downtown, with a reported 29% average increase per year

on selected streets (2008). According to the study, overall pedestrian activity has more than tripled in

downtown Halifax since 1995 (2008). Strong pedestrian activity was also observed in the comparator

systems, and its growth in Halifax is a positive sign for the consideration of future streetcar services.

Streetcars not only thrive in existing pedestrianized corridors, but also encourage increased pedestrian

activity, as was observed in Portland and Saarbrucken. The results of the DHBC’s study suggests an

increasingly supportive environment for the application of streetcars.

In addition to these shopping and entertainment districts are the downtown malls, including, Scotia

Square, the Maritime Centre, Park Lane Mall, Spring Garden Place and the Historic Properties (Figure

49.0). In terms of entertainment, the City has a number of centrally located venues, such as the

Rebecca Cohn and Metro Centres, as well as numerous galleries and cultural destinations, such as

the Maritime Museum, Pier 21, the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia and the city’s waterfront boardwalk.

Located downtown, these businesses, services and social and cultural attractions encourage visitors

to the urban core, particularly during non-peak hours. Circulator transit would link these destinations

together, providing frequent and dedicated service to many of the city’s key attractions. This would

encourage transit ridership for leisure purposes.

With approximately 4 million external visitors, and $725 million in related spending, tourism is

a considerable force within Halifax’s economy. Cruise ships traffic, a key source of visitors, has

doubled over the last five years, with the port welcoming its one-millionth passenger in 2002 (DHBC,

2008). In 2004, the season brought a record 122 cruise ships unloading 212,000 passengers directly

into the city’s core via Pier 21, a trend that is expected to continue in the coming years (DHBC,

2008). Linking Pier 21, also a key development site discussed below, would capture this market by

providing frequent, attractive and accessible service between the cruise ship terminal and the city’s

downtown core.

In terms of existing transit services, the City has a number of commuter services that connect its

suburban areas with downtown. These services, in particular the recent MetroLink express bus

services and the harbour ferry, with service to Dartmouth, provide a source of commuters that feed

Sour

ce: h

alifa

x.ca

Figure 54.0 Bayers Lake Business Park Figure 55.0 Burnside Business Park Expansion


into the city’s downtown core at Scotia Square

and the ferry terminal hubs (Figure 53). Park and

ride facilities in suburban communities, such as

Lower Sackville, are developing effectively and

are encouraging some automobile users to shift

to transit. A number of local service busses also

provide frequent service to these transit nodes, as

well as to nearby nodes at Dalhousie University

and the Halifax Shopping Centre. Growing

transit ridership (9.36% between 2005 and 2006),

particularly commuter services, represents an

increasing potential for developing an efficient and

high capacity urban circulator streetcar line. The

development of which would provide incentive for

commuters, particularly discretionary riders.

In addition to inter-municipal and local services,

there are also regional and national transit services

that connect to the city’s rail station, located on

the southern periphery of the city’s downtown

core. Acadian Bus Line provides frequent daily

bus service from this location to a number of

destinations throughout the Province and Canada. The station is also the eastern terminus of the

Canadian National Railway (CN), which provides daily freight and passenger service to and from

Montreal.

Weaknesses

When considering the performance of the HRM, in terms of population and employment growth, it

is important to note that the majority of recent development has been occurring outside of the city’s

primary core. This is due, in part, to lower property cost and rent. To its credit, the City has been

generating policy to balance development between its core, suburban and rural areas (HRM, 2006;

HRM, 2008). In reality, however, Halifax continues to support suburban residential developments

and expand its suburban business parks. For example, the recent expansion at Burnside now offers

office, retails and light industrial space available for between $3.50 and $4.50 per square foot, a

dramatic cost savings over average space in the downtown core, which averages $20 per square foot

(HRM [B], 2008). While there is a need for such business parks, the City has done little to support

the provision of more urban, Class A, commercial office space.

Increasing economic development and investment at the city’s periphery will have an adverse affect

on its ability to attract business to the urban core. If office and retail space is offered within these

Figure 56.0


parks at a considerably less price than downtown then its desire to target development will continue

to be limited (Figure 54, 55). What is needed is a renewed interest in the provision of infrastructure

and services within the core to restore its competitive advantage. In doing so Halifax will encourage

residents and businesses to choose the downtown over suburban alternatives. Clear examples were

provided in the Kenosha, Tacoma and Portland examples.

Functionally, when considering the factors that would be unsupportive of streetcars one might

easily point to the natural topography of the city. There are a number of areas, particularly with

the downtown core, that have exceptionally steep slopes. Grades in excess of 9% or 10%, by

limiting traction, effectively become too steep for modern streetcar operation, particularly in the

winter months with snow and ice build-up. As such, any successful application of streetcars within

downtown would need to take advantage of street topography, limit alignment on slopes over 9 –

10% and take into account the seasonal realities of the region (Figure 56).

In addition to slope, the city’s traditional grid and street profiles limit the potential application of rail.

The grid, developed before the automobile, features 90o corners and narrow street widths. These

characteristics, coupled with the existing traffic and congestion, potentially limit the extent to which

streetcars are able to run, in particular the ability to provide a dedicated right-of-way. A dedicated

right-of-way was evident, in parts, on all comparator systems. Their presence is also a key to strong

ridership as they allow faster and more efficient travel (Kohn, 2000; Semaly & Faber Maunsell, 2003;

Taylor, 2002).

Although these characteristics do pose challenges to the application of modern streetcars, they were

overcome in the early 20th century when the City first introduced the electric streetcar. Considering

the advance in light rail and information technology, these obstacles would not prevent the

application of modern vehicles. They simply restrict placement on certain streets within the city’s

core.

Perhaps one of the more significant weaknesses of Halifax, with respect to transit, is the abundance

of under-priced parking. Within the downtown core there are nearly 2,000-metered parking spaces

as well as private company parking for a number of office and business complexes. On-site parking

is complimented by a number of surface parking lots and parkades throughout the core. Parking at

meters is free on weekends and after 6 p.m. during the week. Private parking is often provided free

for business staff and patrons. A recent survey conducted by the National Parking Association found

that parking in Halifax was considerably undervalued at an average price of $12 per day – compared

to, for example, Edmonton at $29 per day (NSBJ, 2008). Monthly rates, at an average of $120, were

also comparatively lower – Calgary averaged $293/month (NSBJ, 2008).

The abundance and low cost of parking acts as a disincentive for transit use. Parking lots can also

be expensive. In Tacoma, for example, considering urban land values, each downtown parking


space is estimated to cost developers $50,000 (HDR, 2007). Such a cost illustrates the potential

savings associated with the provision of more effective transit services. By reducing automobile use

and ownership, as was shown in the comparator analysis, streetcars can reduce the total number

of parking stalls required. This suggests an opportunity for Halifax to link development incentives,

in the form of reduced parking requirements, along a downtown streetcar route. Considering the

abundance of existing parking within the city’s core, there is also an opportunity to strip parking

along certain corridors to enable streetcar rights-of-way. This would not only serve to provide

disincentive to automobile users, but would increase the speed and efficiency of the streetcar, as well

as the attractiveness of the corridor for pedestrian movement.

Although the local bus service in Halifax is well used, it nonetheless exhibits noticeable

weaknesses. The existing Scotia Square and Dalhousie University transit hubs are poorly designed to

accommodate increased capacity and are aesthetically unappealing to users. Scheduling between

busses and ferries is not coordinated, leaving commuters with unnecessary wait times.

These transit shortcomings, are, however, the result of a lack of funding for transit and capital

investment. When compared to larger urban centres, such as Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal,

Halifax has very limited comparative funding. Across Canada, for example, the average Provincial

government commitment to transit services is $19.87 per person; in Nova Scotia it’s $3.97, none of

which goes to Metro Transit (Bousquet, 2008). Metro Transit instead relies entirely on funding from

city hall and fare box receipts for operating costs. This

seriously limits the organizations ability to enhance

or upgrade certain services. For Halifax to have the

same kind of multi-modal transit systems found in

other Canadian cities it may want to consider an

independent transit authority, with additional funding

through local taxation, that would operate bridges and

highways along with transit

Opportunities

One of the most interesting opportunities concerning

the implementation of streetcars in Halifax is the

ongoing change in lifestyle preference that has

culminated from years of automobile orientated

transportation and land-use planning. With worsening

congestion, increasing drive times, raising fuel costs

and an intensifying environmental awareness, there

has developed a growing desire for quality urban

lifestyle with livable and walkable communities.

These factors have also increased the financial costs

Figure 57.0


associated with automobile commuting. The result has been a renewed interest in downtown living,

where residents are able to live and work in reasonable proximity, with shorter commutes. This

trend has been exemplified in cities such as Vancouver and Portland, which have seen dramatic core

residential and amenity development (APTA, 2008). This new interest in urban living has, in part,

served to draw attention to modern streetcars as an attractive, permanent and low emission option.

This trend is particularly significant when considering the city’s anticipated population growth.

Over the next 20 years the Peninsula’s population is expected to increase by 20,000 (Clayton

Research, 2004). In addition to this, the student population is expected to grow to some 30,000.

What this means is that by 2026 the population density on the Peninsula will increase from 3,220/

km2 to 4,255/km2, a core density greater than currently exists in any of the comparator examples, with

exception to parts of Karlsruhe and Saarbrucken (See Figure 1).

This population increase will require a considerable increase in the amount of housing and the

capacity of transit services. Considering the nature of the majority of the Peninsula’s existing stock

(detached houses) and the declining average household size, this means that there will be a need for

greater densities of apartments and condominiums (Clayton Research, 2004). Current projections

anticipate that two-thirds of household construction within the urbanized areas of the municipality

will be apartments or condos, the majority of which will be required within the developable areas

of the Peninsula (Clayton Research, 2004). The downtown core, with proximity to cultural facilities,

shopping, education and health care will continue to be a favored location for their development.

The City has an interest in targeting this development along its urban waterfront areas (HRM, 2008).

There is also considerable potential around Pier 21 where the Halifax Port Authority has plans for a

‘significant cluster of community and cultural facilities,’ including the new campus for NASCAD, the

Cunard Events Centre, enhanced cruise ship facilities, a new farmers market and the potential for

considerable residential infill (HRM [B], 2007). This provides an opportunity for the modern streetcar

as a tool for targeting such densities in a manner that minimizes dependence on the automobile, as

well as a mechanism to provide the high capacity and efficient transit that will be required in the

future. The example of Portland, where the streetcar was used to anchor the brownfield Pearl District

with the southeast waterfront development lands, has had positive results. Additional development

and re-development sites north along Gottingen and Agricola streets provide additional opportunity

for the densification of population within close proximity of the urban core and its jobs (Figure 57).

Areas with 'development potential' in this study include areas identified by the HRM, as well as any

land that can be identified as surface parking, brownfield, abandoned or underutalized.

In addition to the projections of a raising population and a greater density of housing stock, forecasts

suggest a considerable increase in employment within the HRM (see Figure 2) – which could reach

228,500 by 2026 (Gardner-Pinfold, 2004). The majority of this employment growth will be in the

health care, finance and professional services sectors, all of which are traditionally located close

to the downtown core (Gardner-Pinfold, 2004). The Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre,


for example, is planning to expand its facilities as early as 2016, adding between 2,000 and 3,000

additional staff to its existing 11,000 (Gardner-Pinfold, 2004).

Demand for finance, insurance and real estate space within the downtown core will also continue

to be a pressing issue in the future. The sector has a disproportionate regional value, employing 7%

of the HRM labour force but accounting for 24% of regional GDP (Gardner-Pinfold, 2004). With

the advantage of an agglomerated core and a cost competitive environment, continued growth is

predicted, with CBD area employment increasing to 19,800 by 2026 (Gardner-Pinfold, 2004). The

sector, traditionally based in the city’s downtown core, is, however, considerably restricted by the lack

of ‘Class A’ office space (DHBC, 2008).

The city has begun to address this issue in its visioning process, and has identified the Cogswell

Intersection as the desired site for an expansion of the CBD area. Empirical evidence that transit and

transit-orientated development create significant value is mounting. It has to do with economies of

agglomeration and the efficiencies created: Some things work better when clustered together. This

presents an opportunity to increase the density of employment within the core and, considering its

proximity to the Scotia Square hub, the use of transit for both commuter and intra-city trips.

In terms of external visitors there is also considerable potential. The Department of Tourism and

Culture, for example, would like to substantially expand the Maritime Museum (DHBC, 2008). A

redevelopment planned for the Seawall would perhaps incorporate this with some of the other

existing tourism attractions. Trade Centre Limited, the owner and operator of the World Trade and

Convention Centre (which attracts 1.2 million delegates per year) is also planning for a major addition

to their current facilities, and is looking to build or move into a considerably expanded space (DHBC,

2008). Cruise ship traffic is also expected to increase (DHBC, 2008).

Another opportunity is transit ridership, which in the HRM has been growing at an impressive rate –

9.6% in 2006/07 (HRM, 2007). This growth has been attributed to a number of factors including the

rising price of gas and auto insurance, as well as growing traffic congestion issues, concerns about

the environment and the introduction of MetroLink’s limited-stop service. With plans for additional

MetroLink services, rural express buses, fast ferries and upgrading to suburban transit hubs, the HRM

can expect continued increases in transit ridership. As transit use increases, particularly commuter

services, the demand and need for connective, efficient and high-capacity circulator service will also

increase.

There also exists opportunity in the city’s existing rail corridors. Although there is no current plan to

extend commuter rail service within the City, the existence of this infrastructure is of considerable

value, particularly if fuel prices and traffic congestion continues to rise. As the population increases,

these dedicated right-of-ways will have the potential to provide fast and efficient connection to the

city’s urban employment centres.

Another opportunity that is emerging within the provision of transit, and currently practiced in many


Japanese, European and American cities, involves the development of partnerships. Today, with

the increasing costs associated with construction and technology investment, the value capture

realized from private public partnerships should be seriously considered. Transit orientated property

development has emerged as a potential source of return that can not only be linked directly to transit

investment, but also to the revitalization of urban core areas. This can be done through the bundling

of ‘transit and property,’ such as the case in Kenosha with its Harbour Front Development lands. In

Portland, the extension of its initial streetcar line was linked directly to a developer’s provisions of

density. In cases such as these development companies enjoy premiums for housing and density built

adjacent to stations. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) realize “co-development” – land acquisition

powers and increased service in the case of the public sector and access to equity capital (Cervero,

2006).

Constraints

The cost associated with the construction of any major rail based system can be considerable. Even

short circulator systems, such as the Portland ($16.72 million/km – 2005 $) and Tacoma ($33.2

million/km – 2005 $) streetcars, can be costly. These costs are due, in large part, to the fixed rail

infrastructure, potential grade separation, wider turning requirements and topographic limitations

associated with alignment. The higher the capital costs the more difficult it becomes to garner

support.

To fund such systems, cities almost always require support from Provincial and Federal Governments.

The level of provincial funding for transit in Nova Scotia – at $3.97 per person – will continue to

be an issue. Garnering the support of the Province would be key to any future downtown streetcar

system.

Related to the costs of construction is the political and municipal aversion to rail. Within Halifax

there has been considerable discussion of rail transit, although in most cases in reference to

commuter service connecting Halifax to its suburban commuter shed. The municipality has not

moved ahead with any rail services considering its high cost effectiveness. Instead, in developing

express bus and ferry service, it has made a considerable case against the future provision of

commuter rail (McCusker, 2008). While these commuter rail proposals are contextually separate

from an urban circulator, there is nevertheless a danger that the Municipality will fail to consider any

future downtown rail service using the same rationale established to dismiss commuter rail.

To justify implementation, future analyses need to consider the full socioeconomic benefits of such

a project. This requires preemptive planning and a financial evaluation that better incorporates the

full costs of transportation. Stronger efforts are needed to better link transportation planning with

community and land-use planning.



Route ScreeningHalifax’s continued growth and prosperity depends on its ability to continue to attract and retain

residents, businesses and services. This is contingent on its ability to provide a location-specific, low

cost and accessible environment. One of the primary components of such an environment is the

provision of an effective, efficient and attractive transportation system (Gardner-Pinfold, 2004). Based

on the characteristics of the city – a centralized downtown core, close proximity of large employers

and destinations (shopping, health care, education, cultural, sporting, entertainment), an existing

successful commuter transit system and a tremendous potential for investment and development – a

downtown streetcar is an option worth examining.

This section of the Halifax investigation presents potential route alignments for modern streetcar

service. Routes are detailed with consideration to the rationale explored above (see Figure 58).

Origin-destination and population data has been sourced from the 2006 Census of Canada.

Central Downtown Circulator - Figure 59

Line length: 1.8km (4km loop)500m catchment pop: 8,700500m catchment density: 4,300/km2

Existing local commuters: 2,280

The primary route of an urban circulator line would need to be built to address the strengths of the

city’s urban environment (Figure 59). To be successful, consideration would need to be made to link

the streetcar directly to existing and planned MetroLink Express bus, as well as existing and planned

local and rural express service. At the moment the area that best addresses this connectivity is around

the Scotia Square transit hub. The area is also home to key shopping centres, hotels, convention

facilities and the north end of the existing CBD with high-density office space. The area around the

Cogswell intersection is also the desired future expansion site of the CBD.

From Scotia Square the line would proceed along Barrington Street, home to a number of shops,

pubs and restaurants and the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design (NASCAD). Along its alignment

it would also provide service to the greater downtown business district, linking the city’s primary

financial offices with the desired new CBD developments around the Cogswell intersection. The

line would also link to a number of cultural and tourist destinations, such as the Art Gallery of Nova

Scotia (AGNS) and the Neptune Theatre, as well as a number of restaurants and bars along Argyle

Street.

Further south the line would connect with Dalhousie’s Sexton Campus and the public library at

the south end of Spring Garden Road. Continuing down Barrington it would then proceed past the

Westin Hotel and the VIA rail and regional bus station. It would proceed past the existing Atlantic

Superstore to the end of Barrington Street where it would link with the existing rail line and loop

northeast into the Pier 21 area, a potential site for mixed-use development. Here it would connect



to Pier 21, the Halifax Port, a new NASCAD campus and the future farmers market. Its connection

to the existing rail corridor would also open up potentials for the placement of a maintenance and

storage facility, either within proximity of the rail terminus, or farther along the corridor itself.

From Pier 21 the line would extend north along Hollis where it would link back to the Scotia Square

terminal. Along its Hollis alignment it would provide connection to a number of key waterfront

development sites, key tourist areas like the waterfront boardwalk, the Maritime Museum, the key

commuter hub at the ferry terminal, the eastern buildings of the CBD and the casino.

The total length of the line would be 1.8km from Scotia Square to the end of Barrington Street.

Total track length, considering a loop one way down Barrington and the other up Hollis, would be

approximately 4km. If parking was stripped along these routes (viable considering the amount of

parking with the City) or traffic direction was modified, it would be possible to have the majority

of the line operating along a dedicated right-of-way. This, coupled with traffic signaling, would

enable service faster than the current busses. Even so, based on the average downtown operating

speeds found in the comparator systems this could equate to 6 - 7 minute headways. Based on

the vehicle per track km ratio observed in the comparator examples, three modern vehicles would

provide service frequency between 4 to 5 minutes at peak, with the flexibility to remove a vehicle for

maintenance and servicing.

By connecting to the existing CN rail track the alignment also establishes the potential for an

extension along the existing rail corridor to the Halifax Shopping Centre. From there the streetcar

could connect with Bedford or loop into the north end connect back to downtown. Examples such as

Saarbrucken, Karlsruhe and Orleans support the joint use of standard rail corridors, particularly when

involving freight and the required electrification of existing track.

Along its proposed alignment the existing slope and street grid present no major obstacles. Necessary

alignment considerations could be incorporated into a future expansion of both the Scotia Square

terminal as well as any new CBD development plans.

The main challenges facing a line along this corridor would involve the streets changes – direction

and/or the removal of parking – that would be required to realize the benefits of a dedicated right-of-

way. This is mitigated somewhat by the routes single direction south along Barrington and north up

Hollis. However, single direction routing presents a more costly approach if compared to a single

track along Hollis operating both directions with a passing turnout. The rationale behind one-way

travel along Barrington and Hollis involves a connection with Spring Garden Road, discussed below,

as well as a stronger link with the Barrington Street shopping, entertainment and cultural destinations

and Dalhousie’s Sexton Campus.

Another shortcoming of the line is its length. Such a short length would provide service to a relatively

small portion of residents (8,700) and local commuters (2,280), and instead would primarily serve as

a dedicated circulator for regional commuters and downtown visitors (Census of Canada [C], 2006).


This, however, would change as development in-filled land along its alignment, in particular along

the waterfront and around Pier 21. Its short length would also have little effect on the existing bus

services compared to a larger system, thus would provide minimal cost savings from reduced bus

service – drivers, maintenance and fuel consumption. This, however, needs to be taken within the

context of a potentially expanded network (discussed below) that, when linked to the downtown

circulator, would rationalize the reduction and/or removal of a number of bus lines. An initial line

could also be constructed to a greater length if a north extension (discussed below) was included.

One of the benefits of a shorter line is a lower comparative cost of construction. At an average per

km construction cost (2005) of $18 million, and the average vehicle cost of $2.2 million, a line of

this length could potentially cost between $40 and $60 million, considering either one way along

Barrington and Hollis or single track along Hollis (Cordon et. al., 2008; Crampton, 2004; Halcrow

TSi Consultants, 2004). Considering the amount of available land along this alignment (See Figure

60), an investment of this amount could catalyze a considerable level of development. This route, by

linking the city’s primary employment area with its commuter transit services would also encourage

the continued growth of Metro Transit ridership (The completion of a cost-benefit analysis is a

concluding recommendation of this report).

The downtown circulator alignment is based on the characteristics of the comparator systems. With

a short length and connection to key transit hubs, it has particular similarities to systems in Tacoma

and Kenosha. It supports the rationale of the study by providing an effective circulation service that

better connects destinations within downtown, efficiently redistributes both existing and planned

commuting passengers, reduces localized emissions from transit and established a strong connection

with the primary development sites within downtown. It also establishes the possibility for extending

service beyond the city’s immediate downtown.

North Extension – Gottingen & Agricola

Figure 60

Line length: 2.5km (5.2km loop)500m catchment pop: 10,300500m catchment density: 3,970/km2

Existing local commuters: 2,445

One possible extension, or perhaps a component of an initial line, could extend into the Peninsula’s

north end (Figure 60). West from the Cogswells intersection the line would extend one-way up

Gottingen with service to the Citadel National Historic Site, and the many services along the

Gottingen corridor, such as the public library and the YMCA. The route would also connect to the

area’s up-and-coming shops, restaurants and galleries. The line would continue up Gottingen to



Young Street (potentially further) where it would loop west to Agricola and return south. Along this

alignment the line would service an additional population of approximately 10,300, of which 2,245

already commute along the proposed alignment and into the downtown CBD area (Census of Canada

[A, B, C], 2006).

Perhaps more significant, however, is the presence of some of the more economically attractive

development sites within the HRM’s urban areas. These areas, in particular, north of North Street

along Agricola and Robie, are perhaps some of the best opportunities for the City to encourage

development. With competitive land values and ample space, the area could potentially re-develop

to accommodate higher density uses and a greater population.

Along Agricola the line would also connect the business/industrial parks to the west. The line would

also serve a number of shops and restaurants and the Halifax Commons. From the Commons the line

would head east along Cogswell Street where it would reconnect with the Scotia Square transit hub.

Like others, this alignment would have some grade issues, particularly around the Cogswell

Intersection. From Scotia Square elevated rail tracks to the intersection with Brunswick, or traction

technologies, would be required. It was, in fact, a similar alignment to one of the previously existing

electric streetcars. One-way service along Gottingen and Agricola would also enable dedicated

rights-of-way, which would realize faster service than the existing buses. Connection further up the

north end could be achieved by extended the line up Gottingen to Leeds Street and down Robie

or Agricola (see Figure 62). This would expand the catchment population by an additional 3,970

persons, of which 1,350 already commute from this area along the proposed alignment and into the

city’s urban core (Census of Canada [A, B, C], 2006). In total, the downtown circulator along with

the north extension to Leeds Street would provide service to a total catchment population of 23,085,

of which 6,075 current commute along its proposed alignment (Census of Canada [A, B, C], 2006).1

Population density within a 500m buffer along this combined route would be 4,050km2, which is

similar to the comparator examples examined earlier (Census of Canada [A, B], 2006).

Service to the north end also establishes the possibility of crossing the MacDonald Bridge into

Halifax, discussed below.

West Extension – Dalhousie - Figure 61

Line length: 1.8km (3.6km loop)500m catchment pop: 8,466500m catchment density: 4,527Existing local commuters: 3,425

1. This assumes a north end extension to Leeds Street with a 500 meter catchment buffer.


Another potential line could extend from Barrington Street west along Spring Garden Road (Figure

61). Along this route the line would better connect Sexton Campus that, currently undergoing a

campus master planning process, is a potential site for considerable redevelopment and expansion.

The route would extend west past the public library and along the Spring Garden Road shopping

and entertainment district, which features Park Lane and Spring Garden Place Malls, the Park Lane

movie theatre and office complex, as well as a vibrant dining and entertainment district. Further

west the line would connect with additional offices and Dalhousie University’s Carleton Medical

Campus, before linking directly with Dalhousie’s main campus. On campus the line would anchor a

potentially expanded Dalhousie transit terminal that would have connections to a number of existing

and possibly revised bus services. This location would also provide service to Kings University

College, as well as the Dalplex and ice hockey sports facilities. Service would be within proximity

to the majority of Dalhousie’s and Kings’ residencies. From the Dalhousie terminal the line would

proceed east along University Ave through Dalhousie’s Carleton Campus and past the Queen

Elizabeth II Hospital and medical facilities (Figure 62). The line would reconnect with Dalhousie’s

Sexton campus and the primary circulator line on Hollis Street.

Slight variations of this alignment would be needed if the initial circulator were routed as a single

track with turnout along Hollis Street, instead of one-way south on Barrington and north on Hollis. A

potential variation of this route could instead extend from Hollis one-way up Bishop Street, through

Sexton campus and onto Spring Garden Road at Queen Street. From there the alignment would be

the same. As discussed above

The obvious benefits of this alignment are the incorporation of the Spring Garden district, Dalhousie

University and the QE II Hospital within the system. Frequent service to these destinations has

the potential to dramatically increase ridership, particularly with the large student population and

considering the anticipated growth in these sectors. Increased ridership would also realize secondary

benefits, through increased ridership, along the initial downtown circulator and to the services and

businesses within its proximity. Along its alignment the route would have a catchment population of

8,466, of which 3,425 currently commute along the proposed alignment (Census of Canada [A, B, C],

2006). The catchment population density would be approximately 4,527/km2 (Census of Canada [A,

B], 2006).

Alignment along Spring Garden Road also justifies the reconsideration of several bus services,

potentially with terminations at an enhanced Dalhousie University terminal. With rapidly increasing

operational costs for busses (9% between 2007 and 2008) there is a strong argument for more

efficient scheduling and service. By operating one-way there is also considerable opportunity for

dedicated alignment, particularly along University Avenue, which would realize speed advantages.

Alignment along Spring Garden also raises the idea of a street redesign, currently underway, to

enhance transit service and pedestrian activity. The redesign of Spring Garden from Queen to South



Park to enhance transit service would potentially

improve the speed and efficiency of service as

well as the attractiveness of the corridor.

The challenges along this alignment concern

the slope along Spring Garden Road west

of Barrington. Slope is also a concern if the

alternative alignment was to proceed up Bishop

through Sexton campus. Within these sections,

slope, at times, exceeds the maximum 10%

on which modern vehicles are able to operate.

To overcome these barriers additional grading

would be required. Any route aligned through

Sexton campus could accommodate grades of

less than 10%. Traction technologies could

also play a role in the potential short distance

operation of streetcars at grades over 10%

(HDR, 2007). The Lisbon streetcar, for example,

operates streetcars over short distances at grades

over 11%. These slope issues were overcome

when electric streetcars previously served Spring

Garden Road.

Other Potential Extensions - Figure 61

CN Rail Corridor - Mumford

The initial alignment suggested above provides for the future use of the south end CN rail corridor.

In this case the streetcar could make use of the existing corridor to provide service extending from

downtown, past Saint Mary’s University, to the Halifax Shopping Centre and beyond to Bedford and

Sackville as extended commuter service or back through the north end as a larger circulator route.

Earlier examples of tram-trains in Karlsruhe and Saarbrucken not only outlined their benefit and

popularity but also established their technical feasibility for duel service.

Alignment along the existing rail corridor would require minimal technical effort when compared

to the construction of new rail tracks. It would anchor the Mumford Terminal as a key commuter

distributer for western community residents. Frequent service would reduce bus capacity and

provide incentive for discretionary commuters to take transit. In Sackville and Bedford the streetcar

would provide service directly to the major shopping centres, universities, entertainment and dining

Figure 62.0 Dalhousie UniversityStudley Campus

Sour

ce: d

al.c

a


districts and financial and business services of downtown Halifax, eliminating the need for transfers.

Stations in these communities would also provide the conditions to realize the benefits of regional

transit-orientated development.

While it is possible to consider this alignment there are real issues with frequent use of the CN rail

corridor. The rail cut has limited capacity and would perhaps require upgrading to make it feasible.

However, if the Halterm were to move or reduce its capacity, the corridor would provide a direct link

some of the city’s most valuable land. If development were to proceed in this way the City would do

well to further study the Karlsruhe and Saarbrucken systems.

Dartmouth

A future extension could also span the MacDonald Bridge with service into Dartmouth. Such a route

would justify the reduction and rescheduling of bus service between Halifax and Dartmouth. This

route would, however, compete with the existing ferry service. It would also considerably limit the

existing capacity of the bridge, or risk being stuck in traffic with in-traffic alignment. Although the

bridge’s weight capacity could sustain modern streetcar vehicles, both of these issues would need to

be studied further to considered this alignment seriously.

Summary

The alignments and service choices suggested above were chosen based upon the observations of

comparator systems and the local conditions of Halifax. The routing is an attempt to best address the

goals and rationale of the study, particularly the HRM’s desire to catalyze development and residential

densities on the Peninsula and to increase ridership by better connecting downtown destinations

for both commuter and local residents. In total the downtown circulator with both (north and west)

extensions (a length of 7.4kms) would have a catchment population of 31,550, a density of 4,157/

km2, and would provide service to a total of 10,790 local commuters who already commute along

the proposed alignments (Census of Canada [A, B, C], 2006).2 This is in addition to the regional

commuters who would connect to the system at transit nodes, such as Scotia Square or Dalhousie

University. Further analysis (a recommendation of this report) would be required to examine the full

potential ridership derived from these sources.

Considering the characteristics of Halifax, with a dense urban core, existing commuter services and

a strong potential for development, it came at no surprise that the result was a proposed alignment

similar to its North American comparators. This supports the rationale of the study by providing

circulation and redistribution services, increased connectivity with the urban core, proximity to

development sites and reduced localized emissions from transit. In doing so they also establish the

possibility for the extension of service beyond the city’s urban downtown, much like the examples

reviewed in the European comparator cities.

2. Assuming a north end extension up to Leeds Street.


An urban streetcar system 7.4 km long would

have a catchment population of over 31,000, with

a catchment density of over 4,100 /km2, serving

10,750 existing local (on-route) commuters,

providing access to all of the city’s identified key development areas.


Alternatives AnalysisWhen considering the options for a downtown

circulator transit system it is important to first

review the goals that such a system would

seek to achieve: 1) To catalyze development

and redevelopment potential around a

transit investment; 2) to increase ridership

by providing service that best connects local

urban neighborhoods with downtown; 3) to

increase ridership by providing service that best

connects destinations within downtown; 4) to

provide connections to regional transit services

for the fast, flexible and efficient redistribution

of passengers within downtown; and 5) to

reduce the environmental impacts of public

transportation.

This study has explored the modern streetcars

for the role of a downtown transit service, and

has shown that it is an option that has potential

for future application. To better understand

why, it is prudent to examine the alternative

– the local bus (Figure 63). Considering the

population growth and development anticipated

to occur in Halifax, an appropriate option would

be a modified bus network, with improved

routing, connectivity, capacity and frequency -

perhaps a dedicated downtown bus circulator

(Figure 64). Currently, there is such a system,

Free Everywhere Downtown (FRED), Although

it is designed and marketed as a tourist service.

Although FRED is free, it not integrated into

the city’s transit network and does not provide

frequent and consistent service. To better

address the needs of local residents and the

goals of this study, such a service would need to

better integrate into the existing transit network

Figure 63.0 Streetcar Vs. Bus Context

Streetcar Vs. Local Bus

Streetcars, given their tendancy to provide local and circulator service, are most like local bus service, rather than express/rapid bus services.

Figure 64.0 Modern Electric Trolley Bus


and provide service that is less orientated and marketed around tourist destinations. It would also

need to provide frequent evening and weekend service.

To further explore the differences between local bus and streetcar, a review of literature was

completed. The following comparative summary is based on available technical literature and

reports, and is prepared in context of downtown Halifax, with reference to the goals of this study

(GCC, 2007; IBI Group, 2006; Kuhn, 2002; Litman, 2002; Luke, 2006; Nelson-Nygaard, 2007;

Translink, 2004). The following points summarize the general findings:

Streetcars attract (up to 40%) higher ridership when compared with busses on similar routes. Streetcars tend to attract more discretionary motorists than busses.

Streetcars have higher capital costs for vehicle purchase and infrastructure construction. They also have higher per vehicle maintenance costs. These costs, however, can potentially be offset on heavily used corridors through increased ridership revenues and operator cost savings (streetcars tend to attract more discretionary riders and can transport more passengers per operator).

Busses have better operational and demand flexibility. Bus service can be modified when needed, to accommodate road closures and changes in destinations or demand.

Modern electric streetcars have a longer average life span compared to diesel or electric trolley busses (25 years vs. 17 years of service). This comparatively increases the net present value of streetcars which is often overlooked.

Streetcars with dedicated alignment can run at higher average speeds than local buses in mixed traffic. There is less potential for traffic related delays. This can offer greater service capacity and reliability.

Streetcars offer a stronger more distinct presence compared to buses. Businesses, particularly those that are readily accessibly to commuters in midday, typically have stronger economic performance when built around a streetcar line. Research suggested that pedestrians felt streetcars connected better with the street and surrounding community compared with busses.

Streetcars better enhance urban design and streetscapes and are more suited to compliment active transit infrastructure, such as bicycle lanes and pedestrian areas, along its alignment (travel patterns are more predictable).

Compared to busses streetcars better stimulate development, increase property values and market attraction. As such, streetcars are better suited to facilitate transit-orientated development and property value capture of nearby land.

Streetcars are more attractive and better suited to capture the tourist market. Since they can carry approximately 1.5 times the number of passengers as articulated buses, they are better suited to handle extra volumes of passengers.

Streetcars are, generally, more environmentally friendly. They run on electricity and, if sourced from clean energy, are much more environmentally friendlier than diesel buses. Streetcars are less noisy and produce less localized emissions.

Generally speaking, rail advocates argue that streetcars provide superior quality service and attract

more discretionary riders. In doing so they better address increasing congestion and emissions

(Pascall,2001). Streetcars are seen as a tool for increasing ridership, gaining political support for


transit-friendly policies and funding, and to encourage more efficient transit-oriented land use and

development patterns. Their popularity with residents is evident in numerous cities, such as Portland,

where voters have approved special funding for rail system development, while offering less support

for bus service.

Bus advocates, on the other hand, argue that buses are more cost effective and flexible, allowing

more service for a given level of funding. Some advocates argue that buses can be nearly as fast and

comfortable as rail at lower cost. They claim that much of the preference for rail reflects prejudices

rather than real advantages. Rail transit tends to attract more discretionary riders within the area it

serves, while bus transit can serve a greater area, and so may attract equal or greater total ridership.

In some cases, when sourced from dirty electricity, streetcars could potentially have a more negative

effect on the environment when compared to busses (O’Toole, 2008). There is, however, strong

evidence that, on average, buses consume about double the energy per passenger-kilometer as light

rail and streetcar service (Litman, 2002).

In summary, while running local bus service will have lower capital costs and potentially lower

operating costs, there are numerous personal mobility, transit operation, urban environment and

economic spin-off benefits from streetcar service that supports its implementation over busses on

appropriate corridors.


Summary + Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to establish the basic rationale for the potential future application of

streetcars in Halifax. Its methodology followed a case review and investigation process, examining

the characteristics of comparator cities and their streetcar systems. The strengths and weaknesses of

these comparator systems were identified and used to inform the (case) investigation of Halifax. The

objective was to investigate the potential of Halifax to support a modern downtown streetcar. This

section summarizes the key findings and conclusions that were made.

Seen to embody the `modern image’ of a city, the electric streetcar has once again emerged as a

popular mode of urban transportation in many cities across North America. As modern variants

of the historic vehicles that once served much of urban North America, they are seen as a tool for

cities seeking to address the issues of urban congestion, core decline and transit ridership. The

benefits of modern streetcars were observed in the comparator examples, with high ridership,

increased land values, enhanced business and pedestrian activity and investment along each route.

These observations were, in part, a result of the streetcars ability to provide an attractive, reliable

and efficient mode of transit with a sense of permanence that resonated with businesses, investors,

residents and visitors alike.

The conditions in Halifax were found to be similar, to a certain extent, to those found in the

comparator cities reviewed. Although its geography presents more of a challenge than the

comparators, the city has a comparable urban population and density, an agglomeration of

employment, services and destinations and a well-used network of commuter transit services. These

characteristics suggest an environment that would support the application of a modern streetcar.

Where the City has exhibited weakness is in its continued willingness to support peripheral growth.

This reflects upon the increasing importance to tie urban transportation investment to land-use

planning and policy. An example of this might be the relaxing of parking regulations for housing

and business construction within proximity to streetcar stations and corridors, in effect, providing

incentive by lowering construction costs. Whatever the case, the future of Halifax remains favorable,

with population and employment growth anticipated to remain strong over the next 20 years.

In response to this anticipated growth the City has envisioned a concentration of population

settlement and development within the city’s urban and core areas, with a particular focus on key

downtown waterfront areas. The city’s planned expansion of its commuter transit services – Metro

Link, rural express bus and fast ferries – have also established the groundwork for increased capacity

and ridership on connecting transit services. The City also has the land on which to focus its desired

development, particularly along the city’s downtown waterfront and into the north end. With vacant

or under used land throughout the Peninsula and an increasing number of transit users, the conditions


for transit-orientated development on the Peninsula are improving.

Having exhibited strong results in the comparator systems, a downtown streetcar has been shown to

be a potential option to anchor such development. They have the potential to catalyze development

and revitalization within the city’s urban core – stimulating local business, generating direct and

indirect jobs, encouraging investment, improving active movement and local and regional transit

ridership. While buses provide a basic social and economic good, they have limits. Streetcars begin

to facilitate economic stimulation and levels of ridership in a manner busses cannot do alone. In

this context, they achieve the goals of the study and in doing so present a strong case for future

application within the city’s urban core.

In conclusion, based on the city’s existing characteristics, the anticipated population and employment

growth and its planning and visioning processes, there does exists a potential for the future

application of a modern downtown streetcar system. The findings of this study, however, do not

provide conclusive evidence to suggest that the City, with its current conditions, should proceed

immediately. What it does provide is an option that should be seriously considered for the city’s

future. It suggests that the City begin making longer-term considerations regarding its transportation

services, and in doing so should better integrate its transportation and land-use planning activities.

The concept of bundling transportation with land use should become a regular process if the HRM

is serious about the desire to facilitate urban density, investment and increased transit ridership.

In an increasingly dynamic economy transportation planning must explore the opportunities that

exist within the larger processes of planning. It is an essential component of urban and community

planning and must consider more than simply the existing movement of people. The streetcar has

emerged in North America as a potential mode of transportation that can address these issues.

Halifax, anticipating growing and developing into its future, would do well to consider the potential

of a modern streetcar as an urban transit mode within its future plans.


Recommendations

This is a preliminary study, based on comparative analysis and intuitive reasoning. The following

could serve to build upon and improve this analysis:

Complete preliminary design, layout and ridership study. Further analysis needs to explore the suggested, or other, alignment. Such a study would explore the capital costs associated with implementation, including track and maintenance facility construction and operation. The study would also identify any technical limitations of implementation along such a corridor, and would provide clear forecasts for ridership. Ridership projections would need to take into account the opportunities for ridership incentives. The study would also need to break down implementation into easily identifiable phases.

Complete market research on the demand for transit orientated development, particuliarly commercial and residential with the city’s urban core, including around the Cogswell Interchange, Waterfront Development Lands, Pier 21/South Docklands and along the entire north alignment of Gottingen and Agricola Streets. Any such investigation would also need to address the potential for streetcar orientated private-public partnerships (PPPs).



References + Bibliography Adams, S. & Powell, M. (2008) Portland Streetcar Development Orientated Transit. Portland:

Office of Transportation.

American Public Transportation Association (2008), APTA Streetcar and Trolly Site. Accessed on March 28 from website: www.heritagetrolley.org/Existing Systems.htm

Bell, J. (2008) Light Rail and Streetcar Systems. Presbyterian College Transit: Information and Research. Accessed on March 28, 2008 from website: web.presby.edu/~jtbell/ transit/types/light-rail.html

Bernstein, S. (2006) “How Streetcars Helped Build American Cities,” in Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty First Century, Gloria Ohland and Shelley Poticha (eds.), American Public Transit Association and Community Streetcar Coalition, 2006.

Bertaud, A. (2002) Clearing the air in Atlanta: Transit and smart growth or conventional economics? World Bank.

Bottoms, G. (2003) Continuing Developments in Light Rail Transit in Western Europe. Transportation Research Board: 9th National Light Rail Transit Conference.

Bousquet, T. (2008) “A City in Transit,” in The Coast Newspaper. August 7, 2008. Accessed on November 10, 2008, from website: www.thecoast.ca/Articles-i-2008-08-07-152434.113118_Transit_City.html

Braund, D., et. al. (2008) The Emerging Market for Streetcar Systems in North America. Presented at the 2008 CUTA Conference, May 24, 2008.

Bundy, E. (2005) Report Card for Sound Transit. Seattle, Sound Trasnsit.

Burgess, P. (2008) Travel Demand Modelling. Presentation given to Plan 6106 at School of Planning, Dalhousie University, on October 14, 2008.

Census of Canada [A] (2006). Cartographic Boundary, Digital Boundary, Ecumene, Road Network, Road Network and Geographic Attribute Files. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Accessed via the University of Western Ontario Internet Data Library System, on October 26, 2008 from website: www.library.dal.ca/IDLS/Conditions/?ff_param_product=IDLS

Census of Canada [B] (2006). Geosuite: Population (2006) and Dwelling Counts (2006) for Dissemination Blocks. Accessed via the University of Western Ontario Internet Data Library System on October 26, 2008 from website: www.library.dal.ca/IDLS/Conditions/?ff_param_product=IDLS

Census of Canada [C] (2006). Commuting Flow Census Tracts: Mode of Transportation and Sex for Employed Labour Force 15 Years and Over Having a Usual Place of Work, 2006 Census - 20% Sample Data. Provided by HRM

Center for Transit Oriented Development-TOD [A] (2006) Station Area Planning: How to Make Great Transit-Oriented Places. Accessed on Sept 13, 2008 from website: www.reconnectingamerica.org

Center for Transit Oriented Development-TOD [B] (2006) Transit + Employment: Increasing Transit’s Share of the Commute Trip. Accessed on Sept 13, 2008 from website: www.reconnectingamerica.org

Center for Transit Oriented Development-TOD [C] (2006) Why Transit Oriented Development and Why Now? Accessed on Sept 13, 2008 from website: www.reconnectingamerica.org

Cervero, R. (2006) Economic Growth in Urban Areas: Implications for Future Transportation. Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley.


City of Kenosha [A] (2006) “Inventory of Transportation Facilities & Service,” in Kenosha County Multi-Jurisdictional Comprehensive Plan. Accessed on October 15, 2008 from website: www.co.kenosha.wi.us/plandev/smart_growth/

City of Kenosha [B] (2006) Kenosha County Comprehensive Plan. Accessed on October 15, 2008 from website: www.co.kenosha.wi.us/plandev/smart_growth/DraftPlanChapters.html

City of Portland (2003) Eastside Streetcar Alignment Study. City of Portland

Clayton Research Associates Ltd (2004) Employment, Population and Housing Projections: Halifax Regional Municipality. For Halifax Regional Municipality. Accessed on April 1, 2008 from website: www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/publications/documentsHRMProjections_001.pdf

Cordon, P. et. al. (2008) “The Case for the Tram: Learning from Portland,” in Foundational Research Bulletin. Design Centre for Sustainability, UBC.

Crampton, G. (2002) International Comparison of Urban Light Rail Systems: the Role of integrated ticketing, pedestrianisation, and population density. Centre for Spatial and Real Estate Economics, Reading University. Paper prepared for the ERSA2002 Conference inDortmund, Germany, 27-31 August, 2002.

Crampton, G (2003) Economic Development Impacts of Urban Rail Transport. Economics Department, Reading University. Paper prepared for the ERSA2003 Conference in Jyvaskyla, Finland, 27-30 August, 2003.

Diaz, R. et. al. (1999) “Impacts of Rail on Property Values.” APTA 1999 Rapid Transit Conference Proceedings. Accessed on November 4, 2008, from website: www.apta.com/research/info/briefings/documents/diaz.pdf

Didrikson, P. (2007) Technology Selection for Intermediate Capacity Transit Systems: Finding the Optimum Light Rail Solution. Total Transit Systems, Bombardier Transportation.

Downtown Halifax Business Commission – DHBC (2008) Downtown Halifax: A Profile for Business. Downtown Halifax Business Commission.

Edwards, M. and Mackett, R. (1996) Developing New Urban Public Transport Systems. London: Centre for Transport Studies.

Gardner Pinfold Ltd. (2004) Economic Potential of HRM and Halifax Harbour. Report Submitted to Waterfront Development Corporation, Nova Scotia Office of Economic Development and Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

Green Car Congress - GCC (2007) BC Finalizes Hydrogen Supply Agreement for Busses. Accessed on October 24, 2008, from website: www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/bc-finalizes-hy.html

Guy, A. (2007) Clang Clang Clang Went Grand Rapids. Issues Media Group. Accessed on March 26, 2008 from website: www.rapidgrowthmedia.com/features/clang7707.aspx

Halcrow TSi Consultants. (2004) City of Vancouver: Downtown Streetcar Benchmarking Report. City of Vancouver. Accessed on March 24, 2008 from website: www.vancouver.ca/engsvcs/ransport/streetcar/pdfs/benchmarkingReport.pdf

Halperin, R. J. (1987) “Portland USA: the Success Story,” in Lesley L. (ed) Electrifying Urban Public Transport, conference proceedings, November 17th & 18th, 1987 in Blackpool, Liverpool, pp. 29-32.

Hass-Klau, C. & Crampton, G. (2002) Future of Urban Transport: Learning from Success and Weakness – Light Rail. London: Environmental and Transport Planning.

Hass-Klau, C. & Crampton, G. (2004) Economic Impact of Light Rail: The Results of 15 Urban Areas in France, Germany, UK and North America. London: Environmental and Transport Planning

HDR Ltd. (2007) Cincinnati Streetcar Feasibility Study.


Holtzclaw J. (2000) Does a Mile in a Car Equal a Mile on a Train? The Sierra Club. Accessed on October 28, 2008, from website: www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/reducedriving.asp

HRM (2004) Halifax Regional Municipality Economic Development Strategy: 2005-2010. Halifax Regional Municipality.

HRM (2006) Regional Municipality Planning Strategy. Halifax Regional Municipality.

HRM (2007) GO Times, Winter 2007. HRM. Accessed on November 9, 2008, from website: www.halifax.ca/metrotransit/news/documents/GoTimes07-newfinalfile.pdf

HRM [B] (2007) Atlantic Gateway – The Role of the Halifax Regional Municipality. HRM. Accessed on November 12, 2008, from website: www.halifax.ca/business_parks/documents/AtlanticGatewayFinal5.pdf

HRM (2008) Halifax by Design: Regional Centre Urban Design Study. Accessed on April 6, 2008 from website: www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/RegionalCentreUrbanDesignStudy.html

HRM [B] (2008) “Business Parks.” Halifax Regional Municipality. Accessed on November 12, 2008, from website: http://www.halifax.ca/business_parks/parks.html

IBI Group (2001) National Vision for Urban Transit in 2020. Transport Canada, accessed on November 3, 2008, from website: www.tc.gc.ca.

IBI Group (2006) Streetcar and local bus: Comparative Review. City of Vancouver. Acessed on July 12, 2008 from website: http://www.vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/pdfs/comparativeReview.pdf

Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation – JPACT [A] (2008) 2035 – Regional Transportation Plan (Final Draft). Portland, Metro.

Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation – JPACT [B] (2008) Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project. Portland, Metro. Accessed on October 13, 2008 from website: www.metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id/227

Kuhn, F. (2002) Bus Rapid or Light Rail for Intermediate Cities? Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et Securite. Arcueil, France.

Kohn, H. (2000) Factors Affecting Urban Transit Ridership. Canadian Transportation Research Forum, Conference: “Bridging the Gaps.” Charlottetown, PEI. Access on April 7 from website:www.statcan.ca/bsolc/English/bsolc?catno=53F0003XIE

KPMG (2008) Competitive Alternatives 2008 Special Report: Focus on Tax. KPMG. Accessed on November 8, 2008, from website: www.competitivealternatives.com/new/tax.html

Light Rail Now Project (2008) "Light Rail Now!" Light Rail Progress. Access on March 24, 2008 from website: www.lightrailnow.org/index.htm

Litman T., et. al. (2002) Light Rail Economic Opportunity Study. Victoria: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

Litman, T. (2008) Rail Transit in America: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

Luke, S & MacDonald, M. (2006) Public Transport Mode Selection: A Review of International Practice.

Mackett, R. and Sutcliffe E. (2003) “New urban rail systems: a policy-based technique to make them more successful,” in Journal of Transportation Geography. Vol. 11, 2. Accessed on April 6, 2008 from website: www.sciencedirect.com

McCusker, D. (2008) HRM Plan links Settlement to Transit Investment. Presentation given to Plan 6106 at School of Planning, Dalhousie University, on October 7, 2008.


Nelson-Nygaard Consulting Associates (2007) Seattle City Centre Streetcar Workshop Report. Seattle Department of Transportation.

Nova Scotia Business Journal - NSBJ (2008) Halifax Parking is Cheaper Than Most. Nova Scotia Business Journal. Accessed on November 9, 2008, from website: www.novascotiabusinessjournal.com/index.cfm?sid=172677&sc=107

Ohland, G. (2007) “Value Capture: How to get a Return on the Investment in Transit and TOD.” ReConnecting America. Accessed on October 12, 2008, from website: www.reconnectingamerica.org

O’Toole, R. (2008) Rails Won’t Save America. CATO Institute

Parry People Movers (2008). Parry People Movers. Accessed on April 8, 2008 from website: www.parrypeoplemovers.com/technology.htm

Pascal, G. (2001) The Rail Transit Debate: An Assessment of the Arguments. Discovery Institute. Accessed on November 3, 2008, from website: www.discouvery.org

Passer, H. (1953) The Electrical Manufacturers 1875-1900. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Parsons Brinckerhoff – PB (2001) The Effects of Rail Transit on Property Values: A Summary of Studies. Cleveland, NEORail II.

Phraner D., et. al (1999) TCRP Report 52: Joint Operation of Light Rail Transit or Diesel Multiple Unit Vehicles with Railroads. Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Board.

Reconnecting America (2008) “Transit Technologies Worksheet.“ ReConnecting America. Accessed on October 12, 2008, from website: www.reconnectingamerica.org

Regional Transportation Authority. Modern Streetcar Facts. Accessed on March 24, 2008 from website: www.rtamobility.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=315&Itemid=154

Schwandl, R. (2007) “Europe.“ Urbanrail. Accessed on October 14, 2008, from website:www.urbanrail.net/index.html

Stopher, P. (2005) Public Transport in Austria and Germany – Some Examples. University of Sydney, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies. Accessed on September 30, 2008, from website: http://www.itls.usyd.edu.au/seminars/presentations/peterspresentation.pdf

Storper, M & Manville, M. (2006) “Behaviour, Preference and Cities: Urban Theory and Urban Resurgence,“ in Urban Studies. Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 1247-1274.

Semaly Ltd. & Faber Maunsell (2003) Comparative Performance Data from French Tramways Systems. South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive.

Taylor, B. et. al. (2002) Increasing Transit Ridership: Lessons from the Most Successful Transit Systems in the 1990s. San Jose: Minetoa Transportation Institute. Accessed online April 8, 2008 from website: www.sactaqc.org/Resources/Literature/Transit/TransitRidership_mti.pdf

Taylor, B. & Fink, C. (working paper) The Factors Influencing Transit Ridership: A review and Analysis of the Ridership Literature. UCLA Department of Urban Planning. Accessed on April 4, 2008 from website: www.uctc.net/papers/681.pdf

Transit Cooperative Research Program (2001) “Supplementing and Updating TCRP Report 52: Joint Operation of Light Rail Transit or Diesel Multiple Unit Vehicles with Railroads” in Research Results Digest. Sept, 2001, Number 43. Accessed on September 30, 2008 from website http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rrd_43.pdf

Translink (2004) “Backgrounder – Translink Trolley Purchase.“ News Releases. Accessed on October 24, 2008, from website: www.translink.bc.ca/About_TransLink/News_Releases/news01210401.asp?


Victoria Transport Policy Institute – VTPI (2002) Online TDM Encyclopedia. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority – WYPTA (2006) Report of the Working Group Visit to Transport Systems in France and Germany. West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority.

Yergin, D, (2005) “Questions of Oil” in The Economist: The World in 2006.


Appendix

Factors known to Influence The Success & Feasibility of Streetcars

POPULATION DENSITY AND SERVICE PROXIMITY: Due to higher capital costs streetcars require high population densities to provide adequate ridership numbers. The proximity of population to stations also plays a role.Data Need Source & Access MeansQuantitative density numbers. If unavailable, data on population (total) and geographic area (sq. km)

Population and density data can be sourced from statistical databases and censuses, such as Stats Canada, and from municipal websites.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: As potential catalysts, the best corridors for streetcars are those with the potential for change. Greyfield sites offer the most potential for redevelopment. Data Need Source & Access MeansGrey and Greenfield sites, zoning information, details on potential and resulting development.

Planning documents, development information, zoning and land use maps are available through municipal offices and websites. Aerial and satellite photos are available through Google Earth and Maps.

TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIVITY/INTEGRATION: To facilitate ridership distribution, streetcars must integrate into existing local and regional transportation systems, particularly at major transit hubs. Data Need Source & Access MeansSpatial data showing transportation infrastructure, including bus, ferry and rail routes, transit hubs and active networks (bikes & paths).

Information on existing and planned transportation infrastructure and movement patterns is available from transportation maps available through municipal websites and map retailers.

LAND USE DENSITY: Streetcars service a variety of trips, and require mixed-use corridors with retail, entertainment, universities, hospitals and other venues that generate all-day travel to sustain ridership. Streetcars act particularly well, in this context, as circulator lines.Data Need Source & Access MeansBuilding heights, uses and occupancy rates will provide detail on density and intensity, while spatial data will show areas of interest, such as institutional and commercial areas, as well as universities, hospitals and other significant venues.

Zoning and general land use maps will provide spatial data, while municipal planning and engineering reports and websites will provide information on building heights, uses and occupancies. www.emporis.com provides data on all buildings in North America above 10 stories.

STREET GEOMETRY: Streetcars are limited by tight corners, complex intersections, steep grades and other natural and man-made barriers. Data Need Source & Access MeansTopographic profiles, street widths and layout, block lengths and intersections, as well as bottlenecks and natural or built barriers.

Spatial data will be available through Google and MSN maps, Google Earth and from road and land use maps available through municipal websites and map retailers.


Comparator Analysis Matrix

Art & Photos

An Investigation Into The Potential Of Modern Streetcars In Halifax