Halifax Transit

[Querce]

Originally Posted by someone123

There was MetroLink service to Lower Sackville (185). Wikipedia says it was discontinued in 2019. Not sure if it was replaced with some other service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroLink_(Halifax)

It was replaced in the November 2019 adjustments

New Express Routes 183, 185 and 186
These three new express routes will provide a combined level of service to replace the existing 185 Sackville Link. These routes will travel between Sackville Terminal and Scotia Square along the exact same route as the existing 185 Sackville Link but with a new extension to Summer Street. These new express routes will also provide new local service in Sackville past the Sackville Terminal.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Article on CBC's site about it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot...orses-2-rapid-transit-projects-1.5585834

I like it! Happy about the ferries, as the basin has long been an unused ROW that will allow travelling times equivalent to, or better than, buses or cars (as per the article) that will not take capacity from any other route. Heck, we live on the water, why not take advantage of the fact?

Happy about the move to electric buses as well. It's about time, actually. I'm thinking there will be some struggles at first, but you have to make the first step sooner or later, and now is the time.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Citizen_Bane

I wonder if the new Bedford Basin ferries would be considered rapid transit? FRT(s).

Unless Transit adopts a completely new style of vessel, these ferries will never be considered fast.

I am hearing grumblings about the choice of Shannon Park as a terminus. Many feel the area in Burnside near the Wright Ave/Windmill Rd intersection would make much more sense.

On the whole, without funding in place this seems mostly like pie in the sky. It would be good if HRM could clean up the toxic work culture at Transit and start delivering actual good service before pumping what would likely be a billion dollars into the existing operation.

[j.graham]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Unless Transit adopts a completely new style of vessel, these ferries will never be considered fast.

In the report they do say they plan on using a new type of vessel that operates at higher speeds than the current ferries.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Yup. In the linked document the vessel type is discussed.

https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/regional-council/200526rc917.pdf

The routes are anticipated to use multi-hull catamaran vessels with a 150 passenger capacity and
a single deck, capable of operating at higher speeds while minimizing wake effects.

Also of interest, for those concerned about the emissions aspect of running ferries:

Considerations for Ferry
The RTS outlines recommendations for new ferry service and identifies aspects of the service that need to
be addressed prior to implementation. Staff are in the process of exploring options for implementation; this
section discusses some of the details under consideration.
Vessels
Appropriate vessel design and navigation technology will be crucial for the new ferries to achieve
competitive travel times while maintaining safety and low wake impacts. Staff will work with partners such
as the Halifax Port Authority to ensure vessels meet all relevant requirements to successfully operate the
service.
Staff will also explore alternatives for propulsion technology in the process of implementation, keeping in
mind the need for sustainability in ferry operations. The technical feasibility review completed for the RTS
recommends conventional diesel-powered vessels to match the existing ferry service’s operations and
maintenance. However, it also acknowledges that marine propulsion technology is evolving rapidly and
alternatives, such as electric ferries, are becoming increasingly available.

It appears that the plan would be to purchase 10 new ferries, which indicates that they are serious about being able to provide frequent service (15-minute intervals) during peak times. I'm actually quite impressed by the plan. Sounds like 'big city thinking', finally.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm actually quite impressed by the plan. Sounds like 'big city thinking', finally.

At a big city price tag. Time will tell if that is actually viable without imposing unacceptable tax burdens on ratepayers of HRM. Time to start buying that property in Elmsdale I think.

[Summerville]

I have a view of the harbour behind the Irving shipyard. Over the past few weeks, I have noticed the HRM ferry venturing towards the narrows. I wonder if they are testing a possible route to Shannon park.

Based on its speed, there is no way that it could be used for Bedford. It seems that Theodore tugboat would be faster

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Summerville

I have a view of the harbour behind the Irving shipyard. Over the past few weeks, I have noticed the HRM ferry venturing towards the narrows. I wonder if they are testing a possible route to Shannon park.

Based on its speed, there is no way that it could be used for Bedford. It seems that Theodore tugboat would be faster

The report mentions that catamaran-style ferries would be used for the Bedford route, and the max speed would be about 46 km/h while the current ferries go up to 18 km/h.

[W.Sobchak]

Shannon Park is going to be a terrible bottleneck. I agree 100% with Keith, the end of Wright on the Burnside waterfront would be better. But there is a push for Shannon Park, because of the stupid stadium maybe going there. They don't even have a multi-modular terminal for the Shannon Park ferry stop. The closest is Highfield Park. If it was at the foot of Wright, they could make a Lower Burnside terminal, and Upper Burnside terminal, then really up the access to the area. Oh shoot, my mistake. I saw what I did there, I looked at the problem with the eye of not spending money on legacy projects, but to solve problems...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by W.Sobchak

Shannon Park is going to be a terrible bottleneck. I agree 100% with Keith, the end of Wright on the Burnside waterfront would be better. But there is a push for Shannon Park, because of the stupid stadium maybe going there. They don't even have a multi-modular terminal for the Shannon Park ferry stop. The closest is Highfield Park. If it was at the foot of Wright, they could make a Lower Burnside terminal, and Upper Burnside terminal, then really up the access to the area. Oh shoot, my mistake. I saw what I did there, I looked at the problem with the eye of not spending money on legacy projects, but to solve problems...

Shannon Park may or may not get a stadium but either way there is a mixed-use development planned with I believe around 10,000 residents eventually.

I am not so convinced about connecting Burnside with downtown. Burnside has almost no residents and no attractions aside from employment, so this would be for people who live in downtown condos and commute to industrial jobs in Burnside? Seems like a small niche. Also, the Wright route would be around 50% longer.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I am thinking the Shannon Park location would be better than Wright for a few reasons, over and above the reasons mentioned by someone123 above.

They are:
1) Shannon Park would have more room to accommodate a Park 'n' Ride (Park 'n' Float?) terminal than the bottom of Wright.

2) With some infrastructure improvements, it could have the potential of being a viable way for people coming in from East Dartmouth, Enfield, Elmsdale via the 111. Wright Ave would probably tend to serve Bedford/Sackville better, which would already be covered by the Mill Cove terminal.

3) Wright Avenue/Windmill is already stricken with heavy rush-hour traffic, and I see getting traffic in/out of a Wright Ave terminal being very challenging. Shannon Park, however has the potential for dedicated lanes to come to/from the 111, facilitating traffic much better (IMHO).

That's how I see it. Good discussion.

[KeithC]

Bedford Highway gets an upgrade

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/l...R98ccTlWsKm2gyTXcBfqPdWU_fOgMJ_-QZh9XA00

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by KeithC

Bedford Highway gets an upgrade

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/l...R98ccTlWsKm2gyTXcBfqPdWU_fOgMJ_-QZh9XA00

The TLDR is that they are removing left turn lanes and making bike lanes (what a shocker) with no changes to add vehicle capacity. A huge disappointment.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The TLDR is that they are removing left turn lanes and making bike lanes (what a shocker) with no changes to add vehicle capacity. A huge disappointment.

Which is why the Mill Cove and Larry Uteck ferries will be important additions to give people options for commuting.

Through some areas of Bedford, removing the left turn lanes will actually slow traffic down, but so be it. I tend to agree with Councillor Outhit's take on it for this case in particular.

[Keith P.]

One thing not discussed in all of this is that if the Federal funding fairy waves her magic wand and gifts HRM many hundreds of millions of our dollars for this, the plan seems to be to turn it over to the existing inept, blockheaded Transit managment bunch and to employ more members of the militant and largely unmanageable ATU to operate it. Both of these are huge mistakes. Transit needs to be dismantled and rebuilt to rid it of the toxic culture that festers there. Some competition would be nice too. Without these sort of things, this will largely be public money down the drain.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

One thing not discussed in all of this is that if the Federal funding fairy waves her magic wand and gifts HRM many hundreds of millions of our dollars for this, the plan seems to be to turn it over to the existing inept, blockheaded Transit managment bunch and to employ more members of the militant and largely unmanageable ATU to operate it. Both of these are huge mistakes. Transit needs to be dismantled and rebuilt to rid it of the toxic culture that festers there. Some competition would be nice too. Without these sort of things, this will largely be public money down the drain.

How does competition work in public transit? AFAIK there is nowhere in canada that has that happening.

[Franco401]

Privatization of transit is a laughable idea. Public transportation is a public service, and any private company is inevitably going to result in higher prices and the loss of routes that don't make money but are important neighbourhoods along them. What are you even suggesting, parallel bus networks? Unless they'e running their own routes to the same areas, there's no motive whatsoever for them to compete and it's just a duopoly, this time without significant oversight. You have to have a vendetta or grudge against government to believe that.

I also doubt that you paid attention to anything in that article besides the single sentence:

“Existing traffic lanes would be maintained in most areas although the loss of some turn lanes may be required,” Connors said.

Your unwillingness to be happy about any of this doesn't make it a valid or non-misleading TLDR.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Franco401

Privatization of transit is a laughable idea. Public transportation is a public service, and any private company is inevitably going to result in higher prices and the loss of routes that don't make money but are important neighbourhoods along them. What are you even suggesting, parallel bus networks? Unless they'e running their own routes to the same areas, there's no motive whatsoever for them to compete and it's just a duopoly, this time without significant oversight. You have to have a vendetta or grudge against government to believe that.

I also doubt that you paid attention to anything in that article besides the single sentence:



Your unwillingness to be happy about any of this doesn't make it a valid or non-misleading TLDR.

All one needs to do is use the existing Transit service in HRM to realize how poorly it is run. So on that point there can be no debate.

Privatization need not result in higher prices. The existing service is subsidized +/- 70% with fare box revenue really being just a token amount of money, so pricing to users is arbitrary in any event. It would be easy to remove ferries from Transit's mandate. Any sort of different transit mode such as rail should also be operated at arms length. Schedules could be coordinated and services operated without issue. With the amount of money being asked for it would be foolhardy to turn that over to the existing bunch whoi have proven time and time again they have no concept of actually providing a useful service.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Keith, I do think you are being a little over-negative here. I have ridden buses recently (before covid), and cannot agree with your characterization of the service.

Your posts at times feel like they have some sort of agenda behind them, but only you know that for certain - and it's not my place to judge. I can say, from my own personal perspective, that you often have a lot of really interesting insight, but framing it in a light of 'all municipal politicians and staff are idiots and must be replaced' causes me to gloss over what you're writing, and thus not give it the attention it deserves.

Please don't take this as an attack, but just an honest comment on how one member is reacting to what you are writing. Just wishing I could be able to appreciate the obvious wisdom and experience that you can offer, without the bias of political rhetoric.

Just my 2¢. I'm obviously not perfect, nor am I expecting perfection, but sometimes helpful criticism is just that... helpful. So that's what I'm offering.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Keith, I do think you are being a little over-negative here. I have ridden buses recently (before covid), and cannot agree with your characterization of the service.

Your posts at times feel like they have some sort of agenda behind them, but only you know that for certain - and it's not my place to judge. I can say, from my own personal perspective, that you often have a lot of really interesting insight, but framing it in a light of 'all municipal politicians and staff are idiots and must be replaced' causes me to gloss over what you're writing, and thus not give it the attention it deserves.

Please don't take this as an attack, but just an honest comment on how one member is reacting to what you are writing. Just wishing I could be able to appreciate the obvious wisdom and experience that you can offer, without the bias of political rhetoric.

Just my 2¢. I'm obviously not perfect, nor am I expecting perfection, but sometimes helpful criticism is just that... helpful. So that's what I'm offering.

Well Mark, it's like this. Just because you had an acceptable bus ride in the recent past does not mean anything other than that. What I see and hear are the people who find it takes them 90 minutes to get somewhere, or who are stranded when scheduled buses just do not show up or leave them standing at the curb. And while nobody expects a travel experience equating to a European river cruise, the experience here is often of the lowest possible variety - stinky, dirty, loud, overcrowded, what have you. This is based just not on what I hear but also on personal experience taking transit here for decades. You seldom hear any postive raves about Transit. They occasionally may happen and people may comment on them because they are so rare. But the overall experience is generally poor or worse.

It seems clear that Transit has historically been incapable of providing a satisfactory service, and many of their operators seem to take great pleasure in inconveniencing or downright antagonizing their customers. Being protected from any consequence by the ATU, it brings out the worst in some. And the toxic work environment in Transit maintenance and admin operations is well-known and well-documented. It is an organization that needs dismantling, plain and simple. We who are paying for it all deserve better. And given all that, entrusting them and HRM Council with a big bundle of taxpayer cash to fund this plan can only be described as reckless, if not outright foolhardy.

HRM has consistently shown a pattern of wasteful, ill-advised spending under this Council and its immediate predecessor, though the current one is worse. We saw the result in the recent emergency budget deliberations where despite being warned by the CAO that tax revenues will be down for years as the commercial sector takes time to recover from COVID, councillors each clung to their pet causes and wanted to keep money to spend on them. It is the equivalent of a boat taking on water and the officers refusing to throw heavy items overboard to keep the hole above water because they were emotionally attached to them. They just do not get it, which is why I have been saying we need to throw this bunch out, now more than ever.