Good thought, DMA. Vincent Coleman is absolutely a honourable and deserving candidate. Since the site of his death has been even more losty under the sprawling Halifax Shipyard complex perhaps it's time for a more public memorial.

And if it doesn't work for the ferry, am I the only one who believes it's time to rename the MacKay bridge to honour a Nova Scotian of true historic significance? While I am certain he was a man of leadership and intergity, I doubt more than one in 500 Haligonians could identify who Murray MacKay was. Given that the bridge overlooks the site of the Explosion, Pier 6 and the Richmond rail yard where Coleman gave his life, it would be perfectly appropriate to name the span in his honour, IMO.

Why exactly are we naming the ferries after people? That just turns it into a popularity contest. I would much rather see a Halifax IV and Dartmouth IV.

...now, that being said....

Hopefully you are the only person who thinks that way. If a person has been honoured in such a way, unless something very negative has been unearthed about them, I think removing that honour is a massive insult.

Or they could name it after the Mikmaw name for Halifax.

Am i missing something and we are getting another new ferry this summer? After getting a new one last summer...?

The other three boats are very old - dating back to 1986, I believe - and are routinely shut down for maintenance per Transport Canada regulations. In order to maintain increased frequencies, new boats are a must. I don't know if they plan to replace the other two in the next two years, but it is a part of the system that needs upgrading.

I have also voted for Vincent Coleman. The other names are worthy in their own right, but I personally feel that his stands out above the others. If his name isn't chosen, then it will come back for a vote when the third and fourth new boats arrive. I feel like it is inevitable one of the boats will eventually bear his name.

I agree, keep with the heritage of the oldest continuous saltwater ferry and call them Halifax IV and Dartmouth IV. I thought there was movement in the last few years to steer away from calling any public building (or items I suppose in this case) after people in case an unsavory aspect of their life comes out decades or centuries later.

Not to take away from Christopher Stannix and his service, but I thought at the time Chebucto (as Colin noted) would have been a smart way to continue with the naming pattern.

The two oldest (Halifax III and Dartmouth III) were launched in 1979, and the Woodside I in 1986.


There was actually a Chebucto and I believe a Chebucto II as well. The Wikipedia article should still have the list that I compiled a number of years back.

My suggestion neglected to include a call for the Mi'kmaq spelling.

I voted for Mr Coleman. Taavel and Tynes did nothing special - never heard of Taavel until he died and Ms Tynes was eloquent and a teacher but if any black person should have been listed there is, in my opinion, only one choice - Richard Preston. His accomplishments were substantial and long lasting.

http://www.pc.gc.ca/APPS/CP-NR/relea...=798&andor1=bg

The 1979 boats are being replaced with one this year and another one fairly soon after. The 1986 will be around for the foreseeable future near as I can tell.

1979 is nothing. The oldest Toronto Island ferry was launched in 1910, with another still in operation launched in the 30s.

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't there some bylaw against naming things after people who haven't been dead at least a few years? Like five or ten or something? To avoid a rush to name things after folks in the heat of mouring, etc.

As you have observed with buildings it seems really easy in Halifax to argue that something's outdated and must be discarded once it's a couple decades old. It might be worth it in this case if the new ones are faster and/or more fuel efficient, have a higher capacity or whatever, but it seems like "old" is a kind of trump card. Once you've got that you don't need any other justification to get regional council on board.

The city used to have school buildings around for 100 years. Today the new ones might last for 20-30 years. This is pretty counter-intuitive since construction technology is supposedly much better today than it was in 1800 or 1900.

The new ferries seem identical to the 1970s designs. Perhaps the propulsion systems are better but in terms of outside design and passenger accommodations they are the same if not worse - the new bench seats seem universally despised, whereas the older ones had fiberglass seats that were extremely uncomfortable also. And I see that a wheelchair user has posted a page online about how the new Stannix ferry does not accommodate wheelchairs. Amazing oversight.

The poster is dead wrong about entry and exit. Open two doors and there is plenty of room for a wheelchair. He doesn't tell you what he'll do if the ferry has to be evacuated during the trip across the harbour.

If maintenance costs are getting out of hand, and an analysis says buying a new one would be cheaper, why keep going with the old?

Open two doors. You know some people in power chairs don't exactly have full use of their arms or upper bodies right?

I don't know the ins and outs of this particular case or if this replacement is justified; it might be. I've just noticed in the past that there seems to be a bias toward shiny, new stuff.

Often the accounting is incomplete or the estimates are wrong. For example, councillors often seem to ignore that older buildings might have heritage value or more value because of their central location and that there are environmental costs associated with tearing down buildings and sending them to a landfill. They also don't tend to consider the fact that high maintenance bills are often a result of decades of deferred maintenance (so annual costs for proper maintenance actually would have been very low). I suspect that deferred maintenance is often a way to get new buildings.

With the central library, one of the studies that was cited as justification for building something new rather than renovating was from 1997 and projected a ~$33M sticker price ($24M in 1997 dollars) for a new building. The actual sticker price of the final library was $57.6M. The cost savings of $1.8M from not having to move the collection twice was cited as a major advantage to building a new library that was repeated over and over in the media, but the price itself was off by more than $20M. I like the new library, but I am skeptical of the argument that renovating the old building necessarily would have cost more given how far off the projections were from the actual costs.

There was zero chance of a renovation of the old library since Queen Judith insisted on a new palace to accommodate the amusement park she wanted.

Maybe new standard should be implemented for all public watercraft to have inflatable pontoons for such purposes. After all, the entire bus fleet was severely compromised by a requirement to accommodate wheelchairs that almost never use the bus system. It also raises the question of evacuation of tall buildings - maybe each floor should have an opening that will allow for wheelchair parachutes.

Prior to boarding ask a crew member to open 2 doors or ask Metro Transit to ensure 2 doors are open when they see a customer in a wheel chair.
The complainer should try visiting McD and other fast food outlets : the access is far worse. Wheelchair man Rick Hansen was sponsored by McD but he never appeared at a McD store : it would have been too embarrassing. Their entrances are obstacle courses designed to deter rapid exit by thieves.

I'm not sure, but I'd guess that saltwater degrades watercraft much faster than freshwater (think about what salt does to cars, for example). BC Ferries/SeaBus might make a better comparison.