2009 11 12 |
I attended the October 27 and November 10 Committee of the Whole sessions and listened with great interest to the debate that occurred regarding the proposed HRM Metro Transit plan. I understand that the adoption of the plan is not subject to an open house, and in the interests of streamlined decision-making by Metro Transit, having a strategic plan is very important. However, as Council demonstrated, Metro Transit is not just any HRM department, and public transit is a very important topic for debate.
The Downtown Halifax Business Commission represents 1,800 businesses with 18,000 employees, all of whom travel to work by car, bus, bike or walk. I believe that makes the topic of how the transit plan will affect downtown very relevant to both us, and your constituents.
I applaud Pat Soames, the IBI group and Metro Transit for such a comprehensive plan. It is a major piece of work, contains many excellent ideas, and obviously required a good deal of research. On its own, it represents the best intentions of Metro Transit for operating a smooth service. I have no doubt that all of the recommendations therein make sense from their micro perspective. However, it is Council’s role to take a macro view and look at how the plan impacts the city as a whole.
For years, Transit has operated in a manner in attempting to recoup as much of its expenses in fares as possible. The report sets a goal of 55 per cent. I would suggest that HRM can have an effective transit system, or an inexpensive one, but not both. Fare maximization cannot be the sole driver for this system. The best public transportation systems in the world do not operate on a cost-recovery basis. We must not think of non-fare payers as “subsidizing” transit, but rather the overall costs of transit as being necessary for a functional city, with savings made in other areas. This has been the case since the early 1800s, when Paris began the first public transportation service.
Notwithstanding that transit should pay completely for itself, there should be a desire to keep things efficient. We see in the report, costs are driven by operating new lines and servicing new areas. The Number 1 is a profitable route, and shall continue to be so, because it services a population for whom taking the bus is an accepted alternative to driving. But routes must go where the people live, not just where it is profitable. As HRM’s residential population continues to expand, demand for transit service and costs will escalate. Recently, Council approved new residential developments in Bedford West and Dartmouth Crossing. Last week, four additional significant residential developments came before the Regional Planning Advisory Committee. Those developments, once populated, will demand and deserve access to transit, while at the same time straining the road system with single-occupant vehicles. We know that the majority of employment is in the urban core - an area that has restricted access, because of geography. Already road-widenings, an additional bridge, and a ferry are being contemplated, at enormous expense. In order to mitigate increased costs for these things (on top of increased transit services) Council should do its utmost to:
1. Encourage bus commuting. This can be done with increased service, faster/better service (i.e. the MetroLink, bus-only lanes), restrictions to single occupant vehicles and transit-oriented development approvals.
2. Encourage more residential development in the urban core. The numbers are clear on pages 13-15 of the report. The areas of highest growth are the ones where the population is least likely to use transit. The highest transit users are in peninsula Halifax and Dartmouth. On the peninsula, transit ridership is high, and walking is the preferred option for 30-50 per cent of the commuters. Based on this, increasing population on the peninsula in particular puts no additional pressure on roads, ferries or bridges. To say nothing of the benefit to tax revenues.
These two imperatives are beneficial to all HRM residents, regardless of whether they commute or not. Reducing the cost of road widenings is obviously a benefit to all taxpayers. But more tangibly, it is to the benefit of all commuters who want or need to drive their car to work if there are not more and more drivers sharing the road with them. Given these imperatives, I would suggest to Council that two items in the strategy need to be amended.
1. Reinstate the plans for the Downtown shuttle. The shuttle would act as a convenient means of intra-modal transportation. This acts as an incentive for commuters who now bring their car downtown (because they feel they will need it throughout the day), to leave it at home. It also acts as incentive for downtown developers to market their projects as ones where car ownership need not be a given. We already know, from operating the FRED program, that downtown residents, like Bishop’s Landing, use the shuttle to go to Pete’s Frootique or Superstore. If a downtown shuttle took in the universities and hospitals, think how convenient that would be. The Transit strategy’s recommendation to make the Number 1 route a Bus Rapid Transit route is a good one, but it does not replace the need for a downtown shuttle.
2. Great care must be taken when contemplating changing the nature of major retail streets into transit-only corridors. Again, this may make sense from a transit-only perspective, but could have devastating impacts on Barrington St. and Spring Garden Road. There are very few examples in North America of transit corridors that are also thriving retail areas. Recently, a Barrington Street committee, of HRM staff (including Transit) and representatives of the Heritage Conservation District, rejected the idea of changing Barrington into transit-only. Just last year, Spring Garden Area merchants rejected HRM’s design for their streetscape, largely because of a desire to restrict the movement of vehicles. Customers are the lifeblood of the retail areas of downtown, and those retails areas are the showroom of the HRM.
I applaud HRM Council their resolve in having a fulsome debate about the future of transit. Development decisions drive the very economics of this municipality, including transit. We have identified two changes we feel must be made to the five-year transit plan, and we ask you to support bringing those changes about.
Daniel
March 24th, 2010
I know cars and roads are convenient, but they are really expensive and they are really taking a toll on our Earth. Can’t we have a city without them? Let’s build a beautiful monorail that can accommodate all transportation needs. after its built we can shed the burden of cars and roads. instead of everyone spending so much money and time every month on their car, they can contribute a fraction of that cost to the monorail through taxes. no more bloody roads and parking lot expenses! at least come up with a design and put it up on a website for people to look at.
Jeffrey Pinhey
November 12th, 2009
A Buses only anything will get you just that. Nothing else, not even pedestrians, shoppers, or delivery vehicles for those shops. The secret to a healthy street is diversity. Jane Jacobs figured that out in 1958, for crying out loud!
Spring Garden Road works because it has on-street parking to provide a feeling of refuge from the traffic. Traffic is not so fast as to be unsafe for all the pedestrians, but I, for one, have never been in what I’d call a real traffic jam on that street. It has cars, motorcycles, bikes, scooters, deliveries, cabs in and out of stands, and a real economy with a word now unfortunately foreign to Barrington - business occupancy.
No retailers who is in business year round want to be on the dollar death trap that is Granville Mall. Because it is not a street, it’s a mall without a roof. The only streets in Halifax I see with some tangible growth and improvements of late are Quinpool and Agricola - and that is probably more due to the fact that HRM has not messed with them…. yet.
Streets are a kind of ecosystem. One that needs some management at times, some tender loving care, maintenance, really. They don’t need 2/3 of thier lifeblood taken away.