Investigation Into The Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax Nova Scotia

MODERN URBAN STREETCARS
flickr commons
urbanrail.net
urbanrail.net
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
An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 1

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

Executive Summary
Halifax’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.
Christoph Groneck / Urbanrail.net

Christoph Groneck / Urbanrail.net
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:
1) Complete a preliminary design, layout & ridership study to: 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.
2) Research market demand for transit orientated development in Halifax, 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.

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 – HRM
Figure 2.0 (Graph) Current + Projected Employment – HRM
Figure 3.0 (Image) Yarmouth Electric Streetcar, Circa 1900
Figure 4.0 (Graph) Decline of the US Streetcar
Figure 5.0 (Image) Development Along the Portland Streetcar
Figure 6.0 (Image) Modern Electric Streetcar Vehicle
Figure 7.0 (Image) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Vehicle
Figure 8.0 (Chart) Preliminary List of Comparator Streetcar Cities
Figure 9.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis Map - Orleans
Figure 10.0 (Image) Orleans Streetcar on Grass Median
Figure 11.0 (Image) Orleans Streetcar In-Street
Figure 12.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis Map - Karlsruhe
Figure 13.0 (Image) Karlsruhe Tram-Train
Figure 14.0 (Image) Karlsruhe Tram In-Street
Figure 15.0 (Image) Karlsruhe Palace
Figure 16.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis Map - Saarbrucken
Figure 17.0 (Image) Saarbrucken Streetcar In-Street
Figure 18.0 (Image) Saarbrucken Streetcar at Station
Figure 19.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis of Portland
Figure 20.0 (Image) Panorama of Downtown Portland
Figure 21.0 (Image) Portland MAX vehicle
Figure 22.0 (Image) New Portland MAX Vehicle with Bus
Figure 23.0 (Image) Portland Streetcar in Traffic
Figure 24.0 (Image) Portland Streetcar Crossing City Square
Figure 25.0 (Chart) Growth in Building Density Based Upon Distance from Streetcar
Figure 26.0 (Graph) Percent of CBD Development Based Upon Distance from Streetcar
Figure 27.0 (Image) Development along Portland Streetcar Route
Figure 28.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis of Tacoma
Figure 29.0 (Image) Tacoma Dome Streetcar Station
Figure 30.0 (Image) Downtown Tacoma Streetcar
Figure 31.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis of Kenosha
Figure 32.0 (Image) Kenosha Metra Station
Figure 33.0 (Image) Kenosha Streetcar
Figure 34.0 (Image) Kenosha Harbourfront Development
Figure 35.0 (Graph) Comparator City Populations
Figure 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 Neighbourhood
Figure 40.0 (Image) Lisbon Streetcar on Hill
Figure 41.0 (Graph) Percent FAR Realized Based Upon Distance from Streetcar
Figure 42.0 (Picture) Development Along the Portland Streetcar Line
Figure 43.0 (Graph) Halifax Area Comparison
Figure 44.0 (Graph) Halifax Population Comparison
Figure 45.0 (Graph) Halifax Density Comparison
Figure 46.0 (Map) Spatial Analysis of Halifax
Figure 47.0 (Graph) Population: Comparator Cities + Halifax
Figure 48.0 (Graph) Density: Comparator Cities + Halifax
Figure 49.0 (Map) Halifax Peninsula Density
Figure 50.0 (Map) Halifax Core Land Use–Education, Health Care & Industry/Port
Figure 51.0 (Map) Halifax Core Land Use–Business
Figure 52.0 (Map) Halifax Core Land Use–Shopping / Retail
Figure 53.0 (Map) Halifax Core Land Use -Transit Hubs
Figure 54.0 (Image) Bayers Lake Business Park
Figure 55.0 (Image) Burnside Business Park Expansion
Figure 56.0 (Map) Halifax Peninsula Slope
Figure 57.0 (Map) Halifax Core Land Use-Potential Development Sites
Figure 58.0 (Map) Halifax Land Use Analysis Map
Figure 59.0 (Map) Downtown Circulator Route Alignment
Figure 60.0 (Map) Extended Downtown Circulator Analysis Map
Figure 61.0 (Map) Extended + West Downtown Circulator Analysis Map
Figure 62.0 (Image) Dalhousie Studley Campus
Figure 63.0 (Chart) Bus Vs. Streetcar Comparison Context
Figure 64.0 (Image) Modern Electric Trolley Bus

Introduction
In 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

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). Figure 1.0: Current + Projected Population - 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. The Halifax Peninsula
Research suggests that the population will
Projections from Clayton
increase by up to 84,000 over the next 20 Research and Gardner-Pinfold
years (Clayton Research, 2004). To ensure Ltd. suggest that over the next
balanced growth and focused development, 20 years the population of the
the city has engaged in comprehensive Halifax Peninsula will increase by
up to 20,000, while employment
planning and visioning processes (HRM, will increase by up to 24,000.
2006; HRM, 2008). These processes The resulting settlement will
propose that the majority of population raise the Peninsula's average
population density from 3,220/
settlement and growth occur within the
km2 to 4,255/km2.
Municipality’s existing urban areas, with
a particular focus on the city’s suburbs
and central peninsula (HRM, 2006; HRM,
2008).
Figure 2.0: Current + Projected Employment - HRM
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
Figure 3.0 Yarmouth Electric Streetcar, Circa 1900
commercial electric railway in North America Source: www.alts.net
(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).

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.
Figure 4.0 Decline of the US Streetcar
Source: Braund, D., et. al., 2008

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

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).
Figure 6.0 - Modern Electric Streetcar Vehicle - Orleans

Streetcar
Primary application Downtown circulator
Track alignment Mostly on city street
Vehicle format Single vehicle – articulated
Vehicle size 15-25 m long, ~2.40 m wide
Turing radius 12-24 m
Station spacing 150-500 m
Commercial speed 25 km/h or less
Source: urbanrail.net
Figure 7.0 - Light Rail Transit (LRT) Vehicle - Sacramento
Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Primary application Regional/urban commuter
Track alignment Mostly segregated
Vehicle format Single / multiple linked vehicles
Vehicle size 30+ m long, up to ~2.65 m wide
Turing radius 15-30 m
Station spacing 800-1500 m
Commercial speed 30-100 km/h
Source: sacrt.com
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.
Research Approach + Methodology
Figure 8.0 Preliminary List of Comparator Streetcar Cities
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).

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).

Orleans, France
Population
City 113,126
Metro 263,200
Area (km2)
City 27.48
Figure 9.0 Spatial Analysis Map - Orleans
Metro 292
Density (/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

Figure 10.0 Orleans Streetcar on Grass Median
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
Figure 11.0 Orleans Streetcar In-Street
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.

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
Figure 12.0 Spatial Analysis

Map - Karlsruhe
Population
City 285,800
Area (km2)
City 173
Density (/km2)
City 1,356
System 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 13.0 Karlsruhe Tram-Train Figure 14.0 Karlsruhe Tram-Train In-Street
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
Source: virtualtourist.com
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.

Saarbrucken, Germany
Figure 16.0 Spatial Analysis Map - Saarbrucken
Population
City 180,500
Metro 350,000
Area (km2)
City 167
Density (/km2)
City 1,080
System 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.
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

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
Figure 17.0 Saarbrucken Streetcar In-Street
Source: virtualtourist.com

railroad profile track, wheels and flanges, allowing Figure 18.0 Saarbrucken Streetcar In-Street
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 Source: virtualtourist.com
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.
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 System Length (km) 6.47
City 568.400 Configuration Downtown circulator
Metro 2,159,720 Vehicle Details Inekon-Skoda (2001)
Area (km2) 10 single vehicles
City 347 20m x 2.46m
Density (/km2) modern low floor
City 1,6,38 overhead wires
avg. speed 24kph.
Figure 19.0 Spatial Analysis

Map - Portland

Source: wikimedia commons
Figure 20.0 Downtown 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 21.0 Portland MAX Figure 22.0 New Portland MAX Vehicle with Bus
Source: trainweb.com
Source: lightrailnow.org

Figure 24.0 Portland Streetcar Crossing PSU Campus
Source: downtowntrolly.org
Figure 23.0 Portland Streetcar

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).
Figure 25.0 Growth in Building Density Based Upon Portland is also well known for its progressive
Distance from Streetcar
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
Figure 26.0 Percent of CBD Development
Percent of CBD Development Based Upon
Based Upon Distance from Streetcar
Distance from Streetcar
passengers can ride the Streetcar and MAX for
60
free throughout the zone. The result has been
increased transit ridership, while at the same
50
time reduced road space and parking demand
40 within the city’s urban core (Nelson-Nygaard,
2007). In effect, through aggressive transit
30
orientated development the city has not only
20
improved its overall transit system, but in doing
10 so has made its urban core a desirable place to
Post 1997
live and work. Developers have recognized this
0
3+ Blocks
3 Blocks Pre 1997 attraction and have responded with investment
2 Blocks
Source: ED Hovee & Company,
1 Block
Portland Streetcar Development Impacts
targeted directly along the streetcar’s alignment
October 2005
Portland Streetcar Development Impacts, October 2005 (Figure 25, 26).

Figure 27.0 Development Along Portland Streetcar Route Portland’s streetcar is well known for the
(Pearl District)
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
Source: railwaypreservation.com
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).

Tacoma, United States
Figure 28.0 Spatial Analysis Map - Tacoma
Population System Length (km) 2.57

City 202,700 Configuration Downtown link/ connector
Area (km2) Vehicle Details Inekon-Skoda (2001)
City 162.2 3 single vehicles, 20m x 2.46m
Density (/km2) modern low floor, overhead wires
City 1,538 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, United States
Figure 31.0 Spatial Analysis Map - Kenosha
Population
City 96,845
Area (km2)
City 61.7
Density (/km2)
City 1,569
System 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
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.
Figure 32.0 Kenosha Metra Station Figure 33.0 Kenosha Streetcar
Source: trainweb.org
Source: lightrailnow.org
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
Source: heritagetrolley.org
Figure 34.0 Kenosha Harbourfront Development Lands

(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 Figure 35.0 Comparator City Populations
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,
Figure 36.0 Average Population of North American Cities with
Germany (pop. 57,111). During the initial LRT Systems Compared to Average Population of Initially
Chart 15
screening of comparators 16 streetcar systems Screened Cities with Streetcars
were found to operate in cities with total urban 1,500,000

1,500,000
1500000
populations less than 200,000 (Figure 34).

This suggests that the required total population Population 1,125,000
1,125,000
1125000
for streetcar system is much less than that of

traditional LRT, which is North America is on
750,000
750,000
750000
average 1.08 million (Figure 36). This is due,
in part, to the redistributive nature of modern
streetcar systems. Saarbrucken, for example, 375,000
375,000
375000
has daily ridership of 45,000 with a (500m)

catchment population of only 30,000. These
Streetcar 00 0
forms of rail transit rely, in part, on bus and Streetcar LRT
LRT
other commuter rail to provide riders. Another
example, Tacoma, relies on transfers from the Figure 37.0 Comparator City Population Densities
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 urban density of the selected comparator cities
to use in transit analysis. High populations is 1,346/km2 (Figure 37). Halifax’s Census
dispersed over large areas, for example, may Metropolitan Area (CMA) has a density of 1077/
not be as beneficial to particular services as km2, while its more urbanized core has a density
smaller condensed populations. In this sense, of 1,903/km2.
population density provides a more applicable
What is also important, within this context,
measurement. Once again, there was
is transit ridership demand on a particular
considerable variation in the initial screening
corridor or area, as opposed to a regional
of comparators. Lisbon, Portugal, for example,
population. Catchment densities, in this sense,
has a population density of over 6,300/km2,
provide a clear idea as to how many passengers
while New Orleans only 512/km2. This range,
are directly served by a system. Orleans, for
however, provides little context considering
example, has a 500m-catchment density of
the geographic areas of each city. To provide
3,400/km2 along its streetcar corridor (Figure
better context, cities with comparatively small
38). A direct correlation between streetcar
and large urban areas were disregarded. Of
service and areas of higher average density was
the comparators selected, Karlsruhe has the
observed in all comparator.
highest urban density at 1,648/km2, while
Orleans has the lowest at 901/km2. The average
Connectivity to Transportation Infrastructure
Figure 38.0 Comparator City Catchment Densities
Perhaps one of the most definitive trends
examined in the comparator systems is their
Streetcars were observed connectivity to transit infrastructure and services.
to operate in corridors
with higher population All systems exhibited centralization around
densities. major transit nodes, with direct connections to
regional and local transit services. Saarbrucken

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 Figure 39.0 Busy Streetcar Neighbourhood
Amsterdam
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
Source: wikimedia commons
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

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 Figure 40.0 The Lisbon Streetcar: operates on slopes of to
offering alternative routes, and stores close to 12% on steel tracks
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
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).

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.
Figure 41.0 Percent of Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) Realized
Based Upon Distance from Streetcar
Realized Densities
80 Since the announcement
of the Portland Streetcar
(1997), the City has worked
closely with developers
60 to acheive considerably
higher densities within
proximity to the streetcar
line and stations. These
40 levels have been acheived
through the provision of
incentives, such as reduced
parking requirments and
20
density bonuses.
0 Post 1997
3+ Blocks
3 Blocks Pre 1997
2 Blocks
1 Block
Portland Streetcar Development Impacts, October 2005

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

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.
Figure 45.0 Population Density (/km2)
Halifax Urban - Central Metropolitian Area (CMA)

Urban Core Area
Halifax Peninsula
Figure 44.0 Population (000’s)
Figure 43.0 Area (km2)

Halifax, Canada
Figure 46.0 Spatial Analysis Map - Halifax

Strengths Figure 47.0 Populations: Comparator Cities + Halifax
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
Figure 48.0 Desnity: Comparator Cities + Halifax
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 Figure 49.0
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 50.0 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
Figure 51.0
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 52.0 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
Figure 53.0 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.

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
Figure 54.0 Bayers Lake Business Park Figure 55.0 Burnside Business Park Expansion
Source: halifax.ca

into the city’s downtown core at Scotia Square
Figure 56.0
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
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
Figure 57.0
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

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 Screening
Halifax’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: 8,700
500m 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 density: 3,970/km2
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 density: 4,527
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 Figure 62.0 Dalhousie UniversityStudley Campus
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
Source: dal.ca
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

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 Analysis
When 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 Streetcar Vs. Local Bus
urban neighborhoods with downtown; 3) to
Streetcars, given their tendancy to provide local
increase ridership by providing service that best and circulator service, are most like local bus
connects destinations within downtown; 4) to service, rather than express/rapid bus services.
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 Figure 63.0 Streetcar Vs. Bus Context
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
Figure 64.0 Modern Electric Trolley Bus
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

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:
Center for Transit Oriented Development-TOD [C] (2006) Why Transit Oriented Development
and Why Now? Accessed on Sept 13, 2008 from website:
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/DraftPlan
Chapters.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/documents
HRMProjections_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 in
Dortmund, 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/RegionalCentreUrban
DesignStudy.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:
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/peters
presentation.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 Means
Quantitative density numbers. If Population and density data can be sourced from
unavailable, data on population statistical databases and censuses, such as Stats
(total) and geographic area (sq. km) 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.
Grey and Greenfield sites, zoning Planning documents, development information,
information, details on potential zoning and land use maps are available through
and resulting development. 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.
Spatial data showing transportation Information on existing and planned
infrastructure, including bus, ferry transportation infrastructure and movement
and rail routes, transit hubs and patterns is available from transportation maps
active networks (bikes & paths). 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.
Building heights, uses and Zoning and general land use maps will provide
occupancy rates will provide spatial data, while municipal planning and
detail on density and intensity, engineering reports and websites will provide
while spatial data will show areas information on building heights, uses and
of interest, such as institutional occupancies. www.emporis.com provides data on
and commercial areas, as well as all buildings in North America above 10 stories.
universities, hospitals and other
significant venues.
STREET GEOMETRY: Streetcars are limited by tight corners, complex intersections,

steep grades and other natural and man-made barriers.
Topographic profiles, street widths Spatial data will be available through Google and
and layout, block lengths and MSN maps, Google Earth and from road and land
intersections, as well as bottlenecks use maps available through municipal websites
and natural or built barriers. and map retailers.

Comparator Analysis Matrix

Investigation Into The Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax Nova Scotia

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Investigation Into The Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax Nova Scotia

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MODERN URBAN STREETCARS

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 1

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 2

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 3

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 4

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 5

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 6

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 7

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 9

The Halifax Context

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 10

1) To catalyze development and redevelopment potential around a transit investment by

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 11

5) To reduce the environmental impacts of public transportation.

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 12

Figure 4.0 Decline of the US Streetcar

Source: Braund, D., et. al., 2008

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 13

Figure 5.0 - Development along Portland Streetcar Line

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 14

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 15

Figure 6.0 - Modern Electric Streetcar Vehicle - Orleans

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

Light Rail Transit (LRT)

The methodology of this study follows a case

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 17

European Comparator Cities North American Comparator Cities

Orleans, France Portland, USA

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 18

System Length (km) 17.7 km

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 19

Figure 10.0 Orleans Streetcar on Grass Median

The city’s streetcar operates on a north

essentially as a commuter service with speeds up

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 20

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 21

Figure 12.0 Spatial Analysis

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 22

Although Karlsruhe has maintained a reasonably steady population, it nonetheless experienced,

Figure 15.0 Karlsruhe Palace

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 23

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 24

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 25

Figure 17.0 Saarbrucken Streetcar In-Street

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 26

the vehicles to go anywhere on standard rail. The

In terms of cost, the federal Government contributed

In planning the initial line the city forecast an initial

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

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 28

Figure 19.0 Spatial Analysis

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 29

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 30

Figure 23.0 Portland Streetcar

Portland Streetcar Development Impacts, October 2005 (Figure 25, 26).

1997 (the year the streetcar was approved)

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 32

Population System Length (km) 2.57

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 33

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 34

Figure 34.0 Kenosha Harbourfront Development Lands

An Investigation into the Potential of Modern Streetcars in Halifax 36

A review of these comparator systems provides