Forget about the fast ferry to Bedford. Forget about an airport bus. Make the Barrington Street and Spring Garden Road shopping districts car-free so more buses can use those streets, but cut the already paltry bus service to Dartmouth Crossing. Increase transit use by 18 percent in five years, by spending $93 million on new buses, fare boxes and terminals, and increase operating costs by $7 million a year. Pay for all this by increasing bus fares and property taxes and adding a quarter to bridge tolls.
Those are the headline take-aways from the five-year transit plan currently being debated by Halifax council. But, those snippets are immensely unfair: for the most part, the plan is a good one, and moves Halifax in the right direction, transit-wise.
Background
In 2006, council adopted the Regional Plan, which governs how and where the city will grow over the next 25 years. That plan laid out an ambitious goal for transit—increase the percentage of all travel taken by transit from the present-day 12 percent to 26 percent by the year 2031.
Last year, city staff put together a Five Year Capital Plan for Metro Transit. I jokingly suggest that plan was written by three guys hanging out in a tavern, four drinks in and scribbling on bar napkins—they basically just threw whatever any politician was talking about into the plan, so it includes a fast ferry to Bedford, a downtown shuttle bus and lots of suburban and rural buses. And lo and behold! the politicians loved it, and so approved it.
Less cynically, last year’s Five Year Capital Plan got two very important things right: it recognized that we weren’t going to get much in the way of new buses until a new transit garage was built to service those new buses, and it said a professional analysis of Metro Transit would have to be conducted, to give some meat to the bones of the Capital Plan.
And so here we are. The garage construction was funded last year and should be completed by the spring, and the international municipal consulting firm IBI Group was contracted to do a high-level analysis, and to write the Five Year Strategic Operations Plan now being considered by council.
Increased costs
The plan lays out the goal of increasing transit use by 18 percent over the next five years. To do that, Metro Transit will have to add 102 new buses over next five years—37 to expand fleet, 65 as replacements for buses that have exceeded their 20-year life expectancy—at a cost of $53.7 million. Forty-five of those replacement buses will be the longer, articulated buses that hold more passengers than the typical bus, and last month council placed an order for the first 15 of them.
Additionally, the plan says that $9.75 million should be spent on new terminals, $6.12 million on new, high-tech fare boxes (last year’s plan pegged that cost at just $1.9 million), $10 million for two new Woodside ferries and $10 million for installing “transit priority measures”—bus-only lanes, transit signals and the like. Lesser amounts are suggested for building new shelters and improving bus stops. Total capital costs over the life of the five years is $93 million.
Operational costs for all those new buses will increase from last year’s $26 million to $32.6 million in 2014.
Fast ferry
The plan seems to go to great pains to avoid talking about the proposed fast ferry to Bedford, beyond the cryptic line that the ferry is “felt to be beyond the five-year timeline.”
Given the level of detail given every other aspect of local transit, this side-stepping the fast ferry should be understood as IBI’s wish to avoid a political firestorm. Several councillors and mayor Peter Kelly have urged the creation of a fast ferry route, and in a closed-door council session just before the last mayoral election, Kelly prodded councillors to commit to making the ferry a “priority.”
That the ferry *isn’t* a priority to IBI, and is essentially ignored by the five-year plan, underscores the fact that the ferry proposal is poorly formulated, has no business plan and is impractical. In short, the ferry is dead in the water.
Improving service
The plan does look in detail at each of Metro Transit’s existing bus and ferry routes, and makes suggestions for improving service—usually by simply running buses more often, but sometimes by making changes to the routes. Most of these suggestions make a lot of sense.
Just one route—the #3, which serves retirement homes in the north end, would be eliminated entirely, while others—the #5 and #17, for example—would be combined with other routes that will run more often.
Barrington/Spring Garden transit corridor
The most problematic suggestion in the plan involves turning the Spring Garden Road and Barrington Street into transit-only corridors. This suggestion is made because the plan adds so many more buses to the existing routes that they’ll clog up the downtown corridor.
Indeed, the plan calls for increasing the “headway”—how often it comes—of the #1 bus to 7.5 minutes (from its current 10 to 20 minutes, depending on time of day). This makes sense, because the #1, which starts at the Mumford Terminal, winds through downtown and then crosses the Macdonald Bridge to the Bridge Terminal, is by far the busiest route in the system, carrying more than twice as many riders as the next busiest. All the other buses that use the same corridor—#3, #10, #14, #20, #21, #23, #31, #32, #33, #34, #53, #55, #59, #66, #80, #81, #84, #85, #86 and #87—will also increase in frequency. It’s hard not to see how the increased service would result in a perpetually traffic jam.
But, page 72 of the plan reads as follows:
Route 1 Spring Garden BRT – while the structure of this main core route would not be changed, it would be converted to a Bus Rapid Transit route operating at high speeds between the Mumford Terminal, downtown Halifax and the Bridge Terminal in Dartmouth… Headways will be decreased to 7.5 minutes peak, 10 minutes midday and 15 minute evening to 1:00 a.m. This will enable a number of routes which now enter the peninsula to be truncated at the terminus of Route 1 at either the Mumford Terminal in Halifax or the Bridge Terminal in Dartmouth.
Problem is, I’ve re-read the plan several times now and can find just one route that is in fact so truncated. “In Dartmouth, the [#87, which originates in Bedford] route would be shortened to terminate at the Bridge Terminal where transfers can be made to the BRT Route 1 for service into downtown Halifax,” explains the plan on page 76. Every other route that now travels on Spring Garden and Barrington would continue to do so, but more often.
This is the problem I’ve been pointing out for years—transit planners still don’t get it, because they’re not bus riders themselves. The number one concern for riders in a climate like Halifax’s is to get the hell out of the elements. You do that by running lots of buses, that can quickly get you out of the ice storm and scoot you along to a nice, warm and covered terminal, where the passenger can wait for your next connection.
That’s not what this plan does. Sure, a 7.5 minute headway is better than what we have now, but by running every bus along the corridor (except the #87), the plan misses the opportunity to get this right. And, while the Mumford Terminal provides an indoor space for passengers to wait, plans for the upcoming Bridge Terminal rebuild still call for passengers to wait, outside, in the god-awfulest, windiest point in Dartmouth; there’s no indoor waiting area in the plans.
The real solution to the #1 corridor is to run a single bus, or better yet, a trolley (trollies hold more passengers), every two or three minutes, and to have all the other buses connect to that line, but not follow along the same path. Additionally—as called for in last year’s Capital Plan and by Paul MacKinnon of the Downtown Halifax Business Association, Bernard Smith of the Spring Garden and Area Business Association and councillor Dawn Sloan—a downtown shuttle bus can quickly connect other areas on the lower peninsula to that line.
Specifically, the growing harbourfront corridor, home to the new NSCAD campus, and soon to be home to the new farmers market and the Nova Scotia Power headquarters, presently has no bus connection whatsoever, and no new service in that area is called for in the plan. A shuttle bus, then, would solve lots of problems, all at once.
The plan seems to realize that this solution is in the cards. “Although beyond the scope of this plan,” reads the plan,” the consulting team envisions that, in the longer term, within 10 to 15 years, Metro Transit’s network of bus routes and ferries will need to be augmented by a network of higher order transit services, specifically, Light Rail Transit, in order to provide the needed capacity to handle higher ridership levels.”
Light rail means different things to different people, but it could certainly include a trolley line through downtown, freeing up the buses to be used elsewhere. A trolley line would also bring some nostalgia and charm to the transit system (see this filmclip from 1957 showing the old rubber-tired trolleys on Barrington Street), while at the same time achieving the objective of getting people out of the elements.
The plan’s call for a transit-only corridor isn’t a deal breaker. Council could simply accept the plan and add more buses until such time that a better solution can be worked out. But, this part of the plan is the most problematic, at least for me.
Dartmouth Crossing
Contrast the downtown suggestions with the plan’s complete neglect of Dartmouth Crossing.
The city, of course, is to blame for approving the development of Dartmouth Crossing without making sure it was configured in a transit-friendly manner. Here we have the newest and largest retail development east of Montreal, and it was designed completely around cars, including the bullshit “pedestrian-friendly” area closest to the highway. Nobody but nobody walks to Dartmouth Crossing to go shopping.
When Dartmouth Crossing opened, it had no bus service at all. Only when Walmart closed its Penhorn Mall store and relocate it to Dartmouth Crossing did Metro Transit start a “Walmart to Walmart” bus, the #56, which also swings by MicMac Mall, so those underpaid Walmart employees with no cars could get shuttled from their old store over to their new store.
At some point, the #72 also was looped through Dartmouth Crossing—but in one direction only.
The new plan calls for discontinuing the #72 loop through Dartmouth Crossing, and leaving the pathetic #56 as it is, dropping by every half hour.
So, we’re left with one of the busiest shopping areas in the city, nearly unreachable by bus.
For example, if you live on the peninsula and want to go to Dartmouth Crossing, you have to take a bus over to the Bridge Terminal, transfer to a bus taking you to the Penhorn Terminal, then transfer again to the Walmart to Walmart bus, just to get there. Then reverse the process to get home, lugging your purchases.
I sometimes see a few sad souls waiting, invariably in the rain, for the bus in Dartmouth Crossing, and can only wonder what extremes of poverty and need would lower someone to such depths.
Airport bus
Remember the airport bus we’ve been promised?
It’s not in the plan, not even hinted at. Cynical as I am, I still assumed we’d get some ridiculously slow and convoluted route that would take a couple of hours to get to the airport, meant of course to keep airport wages as low as possible, not to help travellers. But, no, we don’t even get that.
By and by, Dartmouth Crossing would be a reasonable stop on a downtown-to-airport route.
Other issues
The plan is quite good when it comes to examining Metro Transit’s internal operations. I’ll save you a detailed explanation, except to note that it makes some pretty damning observations of current maintenance procedures. In short, present practice is to let provincial safety inspectors discover problems with the buses, and fix the problems only when discovered; there is no preventative maintenance program.
The plan notes dryly that implementing such a program would save money.
How to pay for it all
The plan makes many suggestions for raising money for all the new transit service.
First, it calls for regular, scheduled, increases in fares, such that fare box receipts pay for 55 percent of the operating costs of the system. This is down from 70 percent a few years ago, but still entirely too high. In California, fare box receipts provided 20 percent of transit costs, and most systems around the world are considerably beneath 50 precent.
That’s because transit saves money, even for people who aren’t using it. When there’s a decent transit system, the city doesn’t have to build as many new roads, doesn’t have to widen existing roads, doesn’t have to spend as much to maintain roads. More, there are enormous social costs related to car travel—car-related smog kills 7,000 people annually in Toronto, for example. The health and police costs of accident victims are paid for by the taxpayer.
To get an idea of the kind of savings that a good transit system can bring, the five-year plan notes that if HRM’s transit targets aren’t met, then we’ll have to build a third harbour crossing—at a cost of $1.4 billion. That’s already up from the $1.1 billion announced two years ago, so there’s no telling how expensive the actual structure will cost. There’s no doubt, though, that financing such a bridge would require an increase in bridge tolls, of at least $1 or $2. To help prevent that, the plan suggests that an additional quarter be charged, to bring $8 million into the transit system annually.
Drivers who commute over the bridges need to understand that the quarter they would pay so someone else can take the bus will save them a couple of bucks in increased tolls to pay for a new bridge.
Halifax council doesn’t have the power to raise bridge tolls, but it can start the discussion to make that happen. In the meanwhile, the plan lays out some other possibilities, chiefly increasing property taxes.
Reject the plan?
While the plan currently before council can certainly be tweaked here and there, to reject it in its entirety—or more likely, to refuse to fund it—would simply be to fail. It would be to fail the terms of the regional plan council itself passed three years ago. It would fail the citizens who will deal with increasing gas prices by increasingly relying on transit. It would fail to take seriously the city’s obligations and stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In conclusion, council should have a good and broad discussion of the plan, amend it how necessary, but generally move the process along.
Related Stories
Trans-forming Halifax
Metro Transit gets Fare-ly expensive
Metro Transit’s polluting buses
This article appears in Oct 29 – Nov 4, 2009.
Great overview, Tim, thanks for this.
“For example, if you live on the peninsula and want to go to Dartmouth Crossing, you have to take a bus over to the Bridge Terminal, transfer to a bus taking you to the Penhorn Terminal, then transfer again to the Walmart to Walmart bus, just to get there.”
Actually, an easier way would be to take the #10 to Mic Mac Mall and transfer to the #56 from there (or the #72 if you want to take the scenic route). Although, this does involve a minimum 17 minute wait.
Still, great article. Another major omission (unless I missed it) was a new night-time bus service. It’s still extremely difficult to get home from the bar after midnight.
Good debate, a few comments:
In the plan, route 52 is also recommended to service Dartmouth Crossing, providing direct, frequent service from the Bridge Terminal as well as a large area of Halifax.
Also, the comment that the new Bridge Terminal will not include an indoor waiting area is incorrect. The Metro Transit website states as a project highlight: “Fully enclosed, heated/air conditioned terminal waiting area”.
There are more routes than the 87 mentioned as truncation candidates, some are suggested for truncation further out than Mumford or the Bridge Terminal.
Dav– thanks for that on the Bridge Terminal. As recently as the Dartmouth Common update, three weeks ago, that indoor feature was not there. That’s good news indeed.
GordonEE– you’re correct about the late night bus being absent, and I should’ve mentioned it. I’ve brought it up in the past– it’s called for in the Clairmont report on violence, and students are underwriting a great deal of Metro Transit’s total budget, and not getting a whole lot in return. That late night bus should be a priority.
What we really need is to reframe the debate around mass transit.
We need to stop asking ‘What should our govenment do about mass transit?’ and start asking ‘Should government be involved in funding and operating mass transit?’
The obvious answer is no. Government should only be involved in protecting and upholding individual rights. Access to mass transportation is not a right.
It is always the same story with government run services. Increasing costs, decreasing levels of service, slow to change, lack of any real growth strategy, frustrating to deal with…
Now, one could level all those charges at a specific private enterprise, but there is always the option to not deal with a private business. There is no option to go to the next best provider when it comes to dealing with the government.
Maybe we, as a city constituency, need to stop the municipal goverment from taking our earned money and handing it over to whatever city project will garner the sitting council the most votes come reelection time.
It’s time to stop the publicly funded mess and open up the mass transit market to private enterprise. This way individuals are free to put their money where there mouth is when it comes to transit planning.
And those who choose to ignore the whole messy drama are free from paying for it.
Chris, you should consider a career writing for The Economist. I would like to remind you how well the privatization of Nova Scotia Power is working out for us. And perhaps you should have a look on BBC News today and read that since the privatization of British Rail, the fares have increased at a rate three times that of inflation.
The Halifax Regional Municipality isn’t exactly a lucrative market for privatized public transit. Hell, we can’t even get an IKEA. It is in every citizen’s interest to support an effective transit system. It reduces congestion, supports local business, and promotes tourism (hey Metro Transit, how about a bus route from the cruise ship piers, huh?). If you feel this is a waste of our money, you are free to vote for someone else or move to a city that meets your libertarian needs.
You’re correct that mass transportation is not a right. Neither are roads, schools, libraries, and so forth. I’m not saying HRM council is perfect, far from it. But I don’t really think the solution is to shut it down and let us all fend for ourselves.
The only reason Nova Scotia power worked out so poorly for us is there is absolutely no competition (available or allowed) in our market, and now we are in a mess. As in most things Nova Scotian. If we had a true free market economy, as I believe this is what Chris is hinting at, there would be no mess. But, alas, the welfare economy would never let that happen.
I find it interesting that Light Rail was brought up by the consultants, in a relatively tight time frame at that (10 to 15 years)… especially considering the city hasn’t even begun planning for that within a 25 year scenario… it shows the depth of illogical nonsense we are fed by civic leaders and staff. I’d love to see that but anytime I have ever brought LRT up ina forum such as this it is pooh-poohed by everyone who can take a crack at it (what do you think this is NYC, if you don’t like it here move)… you know, typical forward thinking Nova Scotian style.
Anyway, pretty good report, some great ideas, and finally something to put the drivel normally spewed out by City Hall into context (such as Peter Kelley’s pet project that he hoped would vault him into provincial politics, the Fast ferry to nowhere).
Fair enough, I retract my “like it or get out” comment, but I still defend our “welfare economy”. I have no problem with people complaining that things are run poorly, but if you object to the entire system of government then I don’t think your voice is going to be heard. It would be like living in America and complaining that it’s not communist enough. And I’m still not convinced that all our problems can be solved with a generous helping of free market.
I agree with so many things in this article. Especially the night bus. It’s ridiculous to try and get home at night. The buses aren’t being used, so why can’t they run a couple? I do not agree with removing service to Dartmouth Crossing. I don’t see why they want to cut service when they are raising the costs. The trolley idea downtown is a really great one. It would cut down on so much traffic! And buses should run more often, or every bus stop should have a shelter. I am a student and do not have a car, so I take the bus everywhere. Sometimes I wait up to 45 minutes (I have waited much longer when a bus has not shown up at all, as has happened many times!) for my bus or for a connection. If they’re going to raise the costs and reduce service, can they at least get some nicer bus drivers who don’t drive away when they see people running for the bus? That person may have to wait an hour for the next one. I hate our transit system. But I don’t want a car because they’re so bad for the environment. I feel like I can’t win!
You maker a number of very good points Mr. Gaudet, however, mass transit is the cornerstone of a functioning city. When you introduce private measures to what should be public enterprises, you end up with messes like the 407 ETR in Toronto. Like it or not, mass transit should be a public concern, because if it becomes privatized, eventually it will become a semi-private operation like Nova Scotia Power, which is not something that we need or even want, to emulate. Perhaps you work for a company with mass transit operations in mind?
Just a few comments on the plan and the alternatives suggested- The service to Dartmouth Crossing is deplorable, but half hour service is actually equitable to the service provided to the BLIP, give or take 5 minutes. Neither is really pedestrian accessible either, although the DC is better designed overall. Perhaps the question should be: should there be more than 1 bus servicing that area? Maybe, maybe not. I’ve seen times where there’s little to no ridership but the next day, it’s busy.
Overnight service is unfeasible, in my opinion. For the little that it would be used, the costs would outweigh the benefit to the city. A counter point to this is increasing and restructuring taxi service, or perhaps clamping down more on the taxi drivers that pull the “I don’t drive there” shtick. Let’s bear in mind, a majority of the student population that would use the nightly buses live within walking distance of the bars.
An airport bus should be in the plans. Especially considering the increases to services to outlying areas like Tantallon in the past few years. Metro Link or Metro X service comes to mind, especially with the comfortable seating. Perhaps the increased fares would offset the costs involved in creating the route. That said, it would put the Airporter out of service, and the airport authority would have a significant say in creation of such a route.
Dartmouthy, LRT will never work in HRM. It’s too hilly, and too costly for the benefits involved. This isn’t Calgary, and it will never will be, it’s not a matter of being in a welfare state or not.
Like I said, LRT means different things to different people. A lot of people seem to want a commuter rail line–which I consider “heavy rail,” for lack of a better term— along the CN tracks from Sackville down through the rail cut, but that strikes me as immensely inflexible, and doesn’t really get people where they need to go. I think, tho, that what’s going to have to be created is a trolley-ish line from Bedford, into the downtown corridor. Off the streets where possible, but down the streets most places.
Move more offices to Bedford/Sackville/Dartmouth where people live.
Everything does not need to be in Peninsula Halifax.
Next big hospital should be in Bedford, more accessable to a greater number of people than in downtown Hfx.
More families live off the peninsula and that number will increase steadily.
Think 20-25 years ahead and abandon the obsession with the Barrington Street area, business has mostly abandoned the area except for bars and restaurants and HRM just wants to load parking tickets on anyone wishing to do business there.
LRTs work fine in areas “with hills”, up to 15% grade as far as I know… Boston is hilly too and they don’t have any problems. But yes, that is heavy rail for sure.
All rail is inflexible from the perspective that you need infrastructure for it to run on though – infrastructure that is not easily moved. Then again, in the correct corridor, it makes a lot of sense.
Thank goodness we will never be Calgary… but growth and a real transit system are not out of the range of possibilities, as even a group of transit consultants can attest to… It should be something we are striving for, at least in a long term sense.
A trolley would be great, and there are tons of cities, just in North America, where Light rail shares street real estate, and works great.
Leaving aside the issue of the cost of improving public transit, we need to consider the improvements to our quality of life. Less time waiting for the bus or sitting in traffic (on a bus or in a car) means that we have more time to do other things with our time. Reducing car traffic is a good thing, particularly in densely populated urban areas. A much larger issue that seems to come up repeatedly, but is not ever really addressed is how much longer we want to structure our urban lifestyles around cars. Obviously cars are necessary, but we probably don’t need as many cars, and many major cities around the world have decided that a “complete streets” policy improves the quality of life of all urban citizens. Complete streets means taking pedestrians, cyclists, public transit routes and cars into consideration when planning for major infrastructure projects. It is times like this, when a municipal government is prepared to act that we need to make sure that they do so with everybody in mind.
For the love of God/Allah/Ganesh/Colonel Sanders they need to stop assuming people go to bed at midnight on the weekends. I don’t expect every route to run at 2am, but there are alot of people that would use such a bus in the downtown regularly.
I think that ridership would increase if the bus litterature was less obscure.
Convoluted signage for routes that are poorly advertised shows a lack of resolve and thought on the part of transit officials.
Seriously, we went to the frigging moon.
Some people question mass transit. That’s their right. If they want to continue driving single-occupant cars, that’s their business.
But I’m a taxpayer too. If car drivers aren’t keen on helping pay for mass transit, well, guess what…I’m not keen on paying big bucks for road construction and repair that is primarily necessitated by – you guessed it – car drivers. I figure we can devise a way of privatizing the rest of our roads and all you regular drivers can pay tolls out the ying-yang. Seem fair, Mr Gaudet?
And as an aside, is anyone actually proud of the fact that the largest single user of space in downtown Halifax (downtown Dartmouth too), especially in a several block belt right by the waterfront, is parkades and parking lots? This must mystify tourists. Go to any city with decent planning, that has this kind of water access (ocean, lake or river), and see how they capitalize on that. That kind of land is like gold. But we use it for parking lots. How stupid can we get?
“I sometimes see a few sad souls waiting, invariably in the rain, for the bus in Dartmouth Crossing, and can only wonder what extremes of poverty and need would lower someone to such depths.”
That’s me, sometimes. I work in the crossing, and don’t have a car. I don’t mind.
Overall, this report has done its homework and if it is implemented in its entirety, it will still have holes, but there will be less of them.
For Dartmouth Crossing, here are the proposed changes to 3 routes from the report:
Route 52 Crosstown – the structure of this core route would be
improved to provide more direct and consistent service to and in
Burnside. From the Highfield Terminal, the route would operate into
Burnside on Ilsley, Wright through the Burnside Terminal transfer
point to Dartmouth Crossing looping at Finlay and Countryview.
Headways would be improved from 30 minutes to 15 minutes during
peak periods for the full length of the route from Chain Lake to
Burnside. The route would meet Routes 56, 64, 66, 72, and 85 at the
Burnside Terminal so that passengers can transfer to access any
point in Burnside and Dartmouth Crossing.
Route 56 Dartmouth Crossing – this route would be restructured to
serve Burnside and Southdale. In Burnside, the route would be
extended past Dartmouth Crossing to serve Commodore, John
Savage and the new Burnside Terminal. The route would meet
Routes 52, 66, 72, and 85 at the Burnside Terminal so that
passengers can transfer to access any point in Burnside. The
Penhorn/Portland Hills section of the route would be dropped.
Headways on the route would continue to be 30 minutes to 10:00
p.m., when service ends.
Route 72 Tacoma Burnside (formerly called Portland Hills) – this
route would be restructured in Dartmouth and Burnside. In
Dartmouth, the route would terminate at the Portland Hills Terminal
as now, operate through Woodlawn as now, travel up Kelly to the
Tacoma Centre, and then to the Mic Mac Terminal and Highfield
Terminal in two directions. At the Highfield terminal, the route would
access Burnside via Highfield Park Dr., the Metro Transit Garage,
Macdonald, and Wright to the Burnside Terminal at John Savage.
The route would meet Routes 52, 56, 64 and 85 at the Burnside
Terminal so that passengers can transfer to access any point in
Burnside. Headways on Route 72 would be improved to 30-minutes
to 10:00 p.m.
All told, no 72 to DC, 52 to stop rounding Burnside and go into DC (Burnside would have the 64 all day for that) after going to the new Burnside terminal. Service from the bridge to DC would be a huge boost. The 56 would start not from Portland Hills, but from “Southdale” (a.k.a. Gaston Road). The report also says we need to hire more maintenance people for more preventative maintenance, something we don’t do enough of as it is now. I also like the suggestion to buy more 30ft “baby” buses (think what community transit uses now) as some routes don’t need the 40ft buses we send out, and it would save on fuel costs.
I would love to see service to Pier 21 year round, which isn’t addressed here, but am glad they are thinking of Russell Lake and of the new development area by Halifax West.
I was sad to see a not-so-detailed mentioning of Sunday service. If I had my way, Sunday schedules would undergo a complete overhaul to improve nonsensical timepoints and bad connections. As I said before though, this plan would be an improvement in ym eyes.
Some good info there PDG— Yeah there is some glaring omissions for Sunday/Holiday service. What I especially like are the routes that terminate at 5 pm.
Nice post, PDG!
I don’t see Tim’s issue regarding the 72 being taken out of Dartmouth Crossing as it only makes one stop onsite that isn’t even close to the larger Walmart or Canadian Tire stores. The 56 is the route that covers the entire DC development on a 30 minute frequency and chances are Metro Transit will be forced to upgrade to 15 minute frequency once the 56 starts getting more passengers from it’s feeder routes when route re-alignments occur. The only areas that will be affected by this cut are Highfield Park and Tacoma but those people can take the 66 to MicMac and transfer to/from the 56. People coming from Portland Hills can also transfer to/from the 56 with ease.
I’d love to see the DC developers install some bus shelters in the near future. They seem to have forgotten that transit users would be forced to wait in the open once Future Shop, WalMart and Canadian Tire abandoned their previous locations which had decent transit facilities.
TIM BOUSQUET FOR MAYOR
Honestly, how many times do we (and the professional consultants we hire) need to say LRT before we act on it.
Amen to the comment on students’ u-passes supplying predictable and substantial annual income for Metro Transit, but getting shafted on late-night runs. Sure the post-bar buses would be a drunken gong show (like they are in every “big city” we dream of emulating) but at least we’d get the mob out of downtown before they killed each other…. which makes me wonder how Gaudet feels about the city interfering with bar shot specials to control closing-time mayhem, but not offering drunks an alternative to duelling over taxis by way of transit. And while I’m on Gaudet’s comments, it has been my experience that privately run buses are no better than public ones only they have less access to city data resources, no transparency, can jack fares willy-nilly (which they do, especially when they offer shitty service) and they tend to compete – not within the transit industry – but with the planning department. Land use and transit are too closely related to be run by different interests. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to explore the Metro Vancouver – Translink relationship.
That being said, I’m open to the idea of running private shopping shuttles from transit hubs to the harder to service retail parks, like BLIP and DT. Get the BIA’s to fund them since it’s big box who created the demand in the first place by locating out of town where they saved a bundle on land. It’s only a handful of multi-national conglomerates who will see increased profits from better service so they should fork out a little for it. Better yet, keep MT running those routes and just get the BIA’s contribution to transit to come in the form of a bus pass stamped on my receipt when I buy something, I might not even use it, but a few cents off every sale would go a long way to financing routes that have little use other than servicing big box retail. The city centre and residential service should be kept publicly funded and accountable.
Since I’m on shopping, I would like to draw attention to the fact that we axed the Sunday shopping ban years ago, but left the Sunday bus schedule the same. Exactly how are all these shoppers and employees supposed to get to the stores?
55% of operating costs is an reasonable expectation of the farebox, ask any city with decent transit. And since we’re dropping a bundle on fancy boxes to ensure no one skimps a dime (how poor/desperate would you have to be to try and steal a bus ride!?) I hope we’re also making sure that these fancy boxes can be swapped from bus to bus so that when the damn fangled things break down we don’t lose a whole day’s worth of fares or else have to take a bus off the road, because they WILL break down.
And if I could make one last suggestion: make bike racks mandatory on ALL buses – I might not live very close to a bus route or I might not feel up to commuting from Kearney Lake to downtown. But I might throw my bike on a bus as far as Windsor St and ride from there, that way I’d have my bike to do all my downtown errands after work on our lovely car-free downtown streets. Heck, I might even surprise myself and bike all the way home! Alternatively, I might not feel up to biking up that mother hill to BLIP, but it sure would be nice to have my bike there to ride home on… not to mention ride around the park which has no transit or sidewalks. This tiny detail will make a HUGE difference to ridership of both buses and bicycles, I promise. The knowledge that a bike can go on any bus if you get tired or your destination (or the weather) changes is exactly what is needed to encourage people to try cycling as a real alternative to cars.
On a personal note, I’m glad the ferry has been ignored. Yes, we need transit to Bedford and fast ferries are efficient and sexy, but I fear if we offer the best transit option in the city to the ripe-for-development ‘burbs we are only inviting sprawl. We need a regional growth stategy with some teeth first. I’d like to see the modes we’ve got supported and maybe some office jobs funnelled out there before a brand spanking, easily expanded, new mode is added. Bedford is more than just a commuter sink…heh, even if it is a basin.
And yet again no fast service from Clayton Park to Burnside. This was promised years ago and then taken away. When are they going to have decent bus support for this route.
There was some talk about putting the new Lacewood terminal where Northcliffe Recreational Centre (Corner of Dunbrack and Clayton Park Drive) is now. Northcliffe is about to become redundant because of the new Mainland North Commons recreational centre. The idea was to repurpose that land to place the new terminal. This however was not mentioned in the plan. Though looking at the land it doesn’t seem large enough to me to incorporate a park and ride which is a must have for all new terminals, if they plan to do that, they may have to build a small parkade… Northcliffe Terminal, has a nice ring doesn’t it?
Speaking of Clayton Park, the Regency Park Community shuttle is a good idea, however the route is awfully short. It would take only 1.25 hours to walk that and about 15 minutes to drive one full circuit. They really should be focusing on Clayton Park in a hub and spoke system. Sure, leave the 2 and the 4 alone because the city is conservative like that, but change the 16 to go directly to Dartmouth via Flamingo passing the Mount.
Create a shuttle that does the regency park drive loop but instead of servicing Lacewood (except to get to the terminal) continue the route down Dunbrack, to Kearney Lake Road, to Parkland, to Regency Park Drive, to Willett to Lacewood terminal, to Dunbrack. They could make it bi directional or even U-shaped. Similar to the route 7 with the bottom of the U at Lacewood Terminal allowing it to connect to other routes. This would eliminate the need have to have the 89 to service parkland at all and allow it to take the 102 to Kearney lake or 16 to service parkland at all. The thing with these main roads covered and on good frequency because of the size of the route it covers a lot more in a more frequent pace within walking distance of thousands of people. It passes all of the large apartment buildings and is within walking distance (max 0.5 km) of most of the suburban sprawl. Just ensure that public paths are maintained in winter and that the public path information is imputed into any trip planners (i.e. google maps) and you’re set. They could call the bus 27 Clayton Park Community Shuttle.
I completely disagree with the proposal to alter the 18 Universities so that it services Bell Road, Summer Street and University Avenue to ‘cover more hospitals’ because it already services ALL of the hospitals on the Peninsula! Heaven forbid people have to walk to the Summer Street entrance of the QEII (Isn’t that complex all attached to itself anyways?), or walk through a parking lot to get to the entrance of the VG or IWK. A lot of students of Dalhousie get off at Robbie, Spring, and Coburg. These students already have a bit of a hike from that stop, why make them have to walk two more blocks to get to school, or wait to go through Saint Mary’s first? (Assuming the route goes in that direction on that loop, Summer to University, to South Park, to Inglis, to Robie, to Univerisites, to Summer) I know it would bring the route to actually reflect its name (Universities… to University Avenue), but a lot of people (about 45% of the people on the bus) get off at Spring and South Park Street because it is the fastest route from Clayton Park to Spring Garden making people walk two additional blocks may reduce the popularity of the route.
I also disagree with the plan’s desire to revive the Bayers Road terminal…that mall is dead and is never coming back to life. Get over it! Making the 18 go that way is only going to cause more congestion on Bayers Road and slow the route down. Unless if you plan to have bus only lanes and transit priority I don’t see the practicality of moving the route from Windsor Street which is currently the fastest way of getting downtown, especially during rush hour.
Also in regards to signs for the 18, they could make them more clear on both the busses and on the stops because direction isn’t really specified.
If it had to change though I would leave it alone in Clayton Park, it does a good job of serving the area. I would put a bus shelter at the corner of Dunbrack and Knightsridge because that is one of the more busy stops on this route. I would move it to Bayers Road, but only if there was appropriate transit infrastructure along Bayers to support it. I would ensure it serves Robie and Quinpool right at the corner before turning left (would require transit infrastructure to allow the bus to turn left from the right turning lane). Move it to Summer Street (relatively uncongested = speed, however two extra blocks for those going to spring garden road… they could transfer to the 1 if they had to), to University (parked cars on the side of the road does cause congestion, especially when waiting for people to parallel park, roadside parking should be removed… there are lots of side streets and parking lots to park in), to Robie (Dal Students get on and off at Robie and University = less walking and no needing to ride through SMU first), to Inglis (SMU students get on and off), to South Park, to University, to Summer to Bell (transit infrastructure required on Bell at Bell and Robie and Quinpool and Cogswell for transit priority).
In conclusion, without the addition of additional transit infrastructure (transit priority traffic lights, bus only lanes) the efficiency of the route 18 will significantly decrease and make it slower. Unless if they city plans to make those infrastructure improvements leave the 18 alone!
Bike racks for all buses are supposedly on their way, and a tender for installing them was put out recently. This being transit, I file this under “I’ll believe it when I see it.” I’d personally love to see this happen.
Just a late update to replies on my previous comment;
I do believe that individual drivers should pay the full cost of driving. That means privatizing all roads and having drivers pay to use them. Removing all subsidies from mass transit and private transit will put them on an even playing field.
Don’t think that I am pro car. I am for individuals rights. That means that a bus rider has every right to not be charged for my car based travel expenses. My argument cuts both ways.
As for the bar shot debacle. What a waste of government resources and a kick to the face of individual rights and responsibilities. Anyone wonder why people around here can’t seem to do anything without the government’s help? It is because of decisions like these that undercut each individuals responsibility to take care of themselves and to control their own actions.
NSP is NOT a private company. It is a Government sanctioned monopoly, with all the drawbacks of a true monopoly. If you want to look at the level of innovation and cost savings available over time in a lightly regulated industry, look at consumer electronics. There are very little regulations that govern the manufacture of personal computers and there is a huge amount of downward pressure on price and a huge amount of innovation, due to all the various players trying to compete for market share.
Also, a ‘generous helping of free market’ is not what actually solves problems. It is the people who are now free to implement their ideas that solve problems. But how can they start, if the government places itself directly in their way?
I don’t understand how a private company ‘eventually becomes a semi-private operation’.
Another issue is all the parking lots downtown. I’m sure that has more to do with the building restrictions in peninsular Halifax than any amount of pro car culture. If the developers were allowed to develop their property in the manner that they choose, do you really think they would choose to leave the lots parking lots instead of constructing money generating buildings (with their own parking lots)?
The overall point I was trying to make is that the debate over the direction of government funded mass transit is a squabble over details of a failing system. The real issue is DO YOU THINK THAT IT IS MORAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE YOUR MONEY AND GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE, WHATEVER THE GIVEN RATIONALIZATIONS?
I say NO. I am perfectly willing to give up my car if it turns out that I can’t afford it. I am not willing to subscribe to some politician’s scheme to redistribute resources and wealth.
I firmly believe that the people who create and earn wealth should be the final arbiters of how that wealth is used.
Metro Transit is so “shopper unfriendly” that you’d think it was planned that way – except that nothing in Halifax seems to have a plan involved.
I very alarmed about the proposed new Lacewood Terminal; yes, the present terminal is too cramped and that’s a horrible turn which the buses have to make into the shopping centre from Lacewood. BUT this is one of the few places in HRM where a bus is fairly accessible from the stores, i e Sobey, SDM, and so on and these stores ought to be taking notice.
If there is to be a new terminal on the other side of Dunbrack, we the suffering “poor” (and I had a neighbour tell me that “only poor people take the bus” – so much for being ecologically aware) will be faced with crossing Dunbrack and toiling uphill for our groceries &c. As we toil uphill from Mumford Terminal, and at Bayers Lake.
I remember European cities where I have lived. Chester, UK, has vast (free) parking lots arranged around the city, with very frequent (low cost) shuttle buses into the heart of a vibrant downtown always busy with shoppers. Jean C