Metro Transit

[Keith P.]

Whenever you are dealing with a militant, intransigent, largely unmanageable unionized workforce, any investment in automation that reduces headcount is a wise use of capital. Eventually one hopes that MT will be entirely automated and have no need for very many ATU members. Or alternatively, that council fires the lot and starts over with a new model that does not require the ATU at all.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

Yeah Halifax won't get an automated LRT route anytime soon. The only way that we would get an LRT route is by using esisting track that would require little start up costs.

I agree that Halifax probably can't afford a SkyTrain-like system, but disagree that LRT can only be viable in Halifax if existing tracks are used. The preoccupation with using existing track has been a kind of straightjacket that has held council and others back from discussing the full range of possibilities.

Building new track at grade is not unreasonable in a city that can afford highways. It may make sense given the problems of the existing tracks. It's not even clear that the city can use the CN right of way, for example, and if it is made available it still won't be a great route. The attitude that any old infrastructure sitting around is a huge windfall is not correct -- often it's obsolete or problematic in some way and better to instead build something new that works properly.

We really need to get away from the "this is Halifax! We can't afford nice things here!" mentality and start actually considering the possibilities.

[DigitalNinja]

I'm just unsure of where another track would go considering the terrain.

[someone123]

Tracks can go along the middle of boulevards or on top of existing road lanes. Using up 1-2 road lanes along one major corridor wouldn't affect other traffic much and could be positive if it meant eliminating bus traffic.

A street like Robie by the North Common could have rail tracks on the Common side and completely separated vehicle traffic. At bottlenecks either signaling or short tunnels/overpasses could be used. As a modest starting point an LRT/streetcar system might serve only the core and then get out to a terminal like Mumford, where bus service would begin. This sort of hybrid approach makes more sense than thinking about a 100% elevated system vs. at-grade.

Long term plans could include stuff like a short tunnel with underground stations along Spring Garden Road or rail on one of the bridges, particularly if a third crossing is built. Imagine how great a neighbourhood like south Barrington/Hollis and the seawall would be with comfortable rail service and zero truck traffic. Getting ugly diesel buses off of Barrington and Spring Garden Road would also be great.

[DigitalNinja]

Our favorite journalist posted a well done article about the transit strike. He got some copies of current and proposed scheduling systems and compared them and explained how they are used. Overall it is a very good article and worth a read.

I posted links at the bottom of this post to the article as well as PDF's of the schedules. The PDF's are quite large, first is 120mb second is 88mb.

In context: What a bus driver's day looks like
Plus: why are the buses never on schedule?
The Coast
Posted by Tim Bousquet
Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 3:59 PM


It's frustrating that for the duration of the transit strike, now in its 24th day, we---the public---are left hearing competing versions of the scheduling and overtime issues that are at the heart of conflict, but haven't been provided with much information beyond talking points.

Fortunately, yesterday a bus driver gave me the actual scheduling documents used to assign shifts, called the "run cut," and the proposed documents that the city wants to use. I don't know why neither the city nor the union made these documents public before, but now people can look at the documents and form their own conclusions.

In the interest of getting as much information in the hands of readers as possible, yesterday I scanned in the dozens of pages and uploaded them to our website. But be forewarned: these are very large PDF files, and will take a while to download. I suggest opening them in another tab, and reading further as they download to your computer. (And please forgive the low quality of these scans-- it's the weekend and The Coast's tech people are out of the office; I'll try to improve them tomorrow.)

There are two documents. The first is a list of the existing bus driver shifts, as of November 2011, found here (PDF, 120 MB). The second is an example of the proposed "roster" of shifts the city is putting forward, as presented to drivers, and is here (PDF, 88 MB).

.

.

.

The whole article can be found here http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/...day-looks-like

With sample files of schedules here:

Existing system, Nov. 2011

Proposed rostering system

[Hali87]

Metro Transit wants to add, cut routes

Or alternately, Metro Transit hates seniors, leading them to cut redundant routes with no ridership

Or, Who would pay $3 to get to the airport when you can get a cab for $50?

[spaustin]

Other tidbits from Metro Transit is they're finally going to make the routes on Portland Street make sense. Instead of following each other in a parade, they're going to space them out, effectively giving 10 minute frequency on Portland from Portland Hills to the bridge. I didn't see it in the media report, so maybe it got dropped, but Metro Transit's presentation to council also indicated that they're going to cut the later ferry runs. That seems counterproductive. The ferry isn't just a bus that runs along a road, it's an alternative route that doesn't exist when it's not there. The last run will be 10:30 instead of 11:30. They should be heading in the opposite direction. Maybe cut later runs on Monday-Thursday, but on Friday and Saturday nights when people are out and there are events Downtown or at Alderney, the ferry's should go later into the evening. If we want a vibrant centre, we should be trying to ensure that Halifax and Dartmouth's respective Downtowns compliment each other. The ferry offers a good connection between the two and it's actually fun for people to ride (people who won't ride a bus will happily hop on the ferry). With Downtown Dartmouth now coming into its own, this seems like the wrong decision. They're also going to ditch Sunday mornings.

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...ow3transit.pdf

[someone123]

Ferry service is being cut (http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/8...-ferry-service). Service will end at 10:30 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday, and Sunday service won't start until 11:30 a.m. Apparently this is related to a 290 passenger per hour target set by council a few years ago.

Of course this comes on the heels of a protracted transit strike. In the end the result seems to be that if you're in Halifax you can't rely on transit -- better get a car if you can afford it.

I wonder if they purposefully chose to include a picture of King's Wharf with the article:

[Keith P.]

Apparently the late-night runs often have 10 or 20 passengers on a boat that can hold something like 400.

The service standard was approved by Council a few years ago.

The cut was included in MT's budget submission to Council last month. Apparently not a single councillor bothered to read it.

What does this say about our standard of governance and oversight?

1. Council sets a standard and directs MT to meet it.
2. MT decides that a service is not meeting aid standard and reduces service as a result.
3. MT submits its plans to Council and nobody complains.
4. A month later it gets noted in the press and all hell breaks loose.

No bloody wonder nobody wants to be the boss at MT.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Apparently the late-night runs often have 10 or 20 passengers on a boat that can hold something like 400.

The service standard was approved by Council a few years ago.

The cut was included in MT's budget submission to Council last month. Apparently not a single councillor bothered to read it.

What does this say about our standard of governance and oversight?

1. Council sets a standard and directs MT to meet it.
2. MT decides that a service is not meeting aid standard and reduces service as a result.
3. MT submits its plans to Council and nobody complains.
4. A month later it gets noted in the press and all hell breaks loose.

No bloody wonder nobody wants to be the boss at MT.

Yeah I had the exact same thoughts.

It also "amused" me (in a black humour sense) that Gloria & Sloane were both wound up about how horrible this was for their respective fiefdoms, and yet didn't care at all about cutting other routes. The entire operation of this council revolves around screaming about "oh my poor area, boo hoo, we are so hard done by" and all the while expecting other areas to be held to performance targets which are only fine as long as they aren't applied to you.

They need to either be for target based efficiency measures, or not, but they can't be selectively against them only when it affects their fiefdom.
MT is never going to be able to move forward and grow in an operationally efficient way unless councillors get out of the way of the operations and stick to creating performance goals while letting MT decide how to best meet them (Unless Gloria went out and got a degree in transportation management when I wasn't looking).

This is a prime example of what was discussed at the Progress Magazine's forum on innovation yesterday. We were asked what qualities make an organization innovative, and in our group we turned it around and said that we wanted to start by identifying qualities that make organizations anti-innovation. One major example of the latter was a bureaucratic structure in which the upper decision makers ignore the expertise of the people they hired and hence overrule them, rather than simply defining what you want to achieve and leaving it to the experts that you hired to find and implement the best solutions whatever that might be.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree that Halifax probably can't afford a SkyTrain-like system, but disagree that LRT can only be viable in Halifax if existing tracks are used. The preoccupation with using existing track has been a kind of straightjacket that has held council and others back from discussing the full range of possibilities.

Building new track at grade is not unreasonable in a city that can afford highways. It may make sense given the problems of the existing tracks. It's not even clear that the city can use the CN right of way, for example, and if it is made available it still won't be a great route. The attitude that any old infrastructure sitting around is a huge windfall is not correct -- often it's obsolete or problematic in some way and better to instead build something new that works properly.

We really need to get away from the "this is Halifax! We can't afford nice things here!" mentality and start actually considering the possibilities.

You guys and us Winnipeggers have the same LRT issue.

[jasonashhh]

Did anyone see a picture of the new metro x buses for the airport run? Their a smaller size than the new double buses we have now they look pretty nice if anyone has a photo pls post

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by armorand93

You guys and us Winnipeggers have the same LRT issue.

Its a problem all across Canada. We are one of the most wealthy countries in the world. WTF.

Its psychology, not reality. We need to put more attention toward public transport that isn't buses in existing traffic. Its a no brainer... but we have all these assholes talking about costs like we are under Greek austerity or something.

The federal government should really roll out an innovation strategy centered around public transportation. I'm not into conspiracies, but our politicians must be buying into some kind of car culture argument. I believe in cars, especially with the way things are going with new engine formats. But there has to be some sort of diversion away from rural roads to urban transport.

Let's be honest, the usage would be way higher in Halifax. Fuck politics, lets deal with realities.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by jasonashhh

Did anyone see a picture of the new metro x buses for the airport run? Their a smaller size than the new double buses we have now they look pretty nice if anyone has a photo pls post

I'm so excited! The shuttle is supposed to launch the 31st and I plan be be on it. I'm not going anywhere; I'll just go out, sit around the airport for an hour, then go back.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

The federal government should really roll out an innovation strategy centered around public transportation. I'm not into conspiracies, but our politicians must be buying into some kind of car culture argument. I believe in cars, especially with the way things are going with new engine formats. But there has to be some sort of diversion away from rural roads to urban transport.

Even if there were no pollution problems with cars there would still be space problems. In bigger cities there isn't enough space for everybody to drive around -- you can't have Midtown Manhattan and yet also have everybody drive their own car. In small towns you can get away with surface and street parking.

I think part of the problem is that Halifax is transitioning between small town and bigger city. City Hall in a lot of ways still hangs on to the small town mentality and moves at a small town pace when more ambitious solutions are needed. There are many parts of the city where fiddling with street parking or adding buses is really not going to solve anything, for example.

One weird aspect of this is that the province and HDBC managed some highway planning and bridges, so there's a big disconnect between different types of transportations proposed. We might get a 6-lane 102, 113, third bridge, there's that 10-lane Dartmouth highway, etc., but HRM can't even handle Bayers Road. If transit planning were done at the same scale as highways and bridges Halifax would be in a much better state.

[Nouvellecosse]

Ever consider coming back and running for council?

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

The federal government should really roll out an innovation strategy centered around public transportation. I'm not into conspiracies, but our politicians must be buying into some kind of car culture argument. I believe in cars, especially with the way things are going with new engine formats. But there has to be some sort of diversion away from rural roads to urban transport.

On transit, the federal government is completely ineffective. The federal answer to public transit was to give everyone a transit tax credit that has taken billions out of the federal treasury over the last several years. No one is going to start taking transit because they'll get some tiny tax break several months down the line, so the public transit tax credit basically rewarded people for doing something they were going to do anyway. In other words, it has zero impact. Now consider if they had taken that money that was given up on the wasted tax credit and actually invested it in public transit. That would have produced way more bang for the buck! Even if widely spread across the country, it could still have made a difference because municipalities and provinces would have matched the funds. Our Metro Link routes are a good example of that. They came about because of fairly modest federal investments. Don't expect the Tories to change tact anytime soon though as tax credits are their answer to everything (even when they don't work).

[scooby074]

Sort of on the LRT front.

Anybody notice the new walking trail from Upper Water (near the sewage plant) to the MacDonald bridge?

Paved too.

That would have been a great location for the LRT corridor to the dockyards.

Gotta wonder why the heck spend the money on a new, paved walking trail, complete with wooden guardrails and planted trees when there is a sidewalk not 10' away Only in Halifax

[gm_scott]

^ I hate this new path. Seems so out of place in an urban setting

[someone123]

Originally Posted by spaustin

On transit, the federal government is completely ineffective. The federal answer to public transit was to give everyone a transit tax credit that has taken billions out of the federal treasury over the last several years. No one is going to start taking transit because they'll get some tiny tax break several months down the line, so the public transit tax credit basically rewarded people for doing something they were going to do anyway. In other words, it has zero impact. Now consider if they had taken that money that was given up on the wasted tax credit and actually invested it in public transit. That would have produced way more bang for the buck! Even if widely spread across the country, it could still have made a difference because municipalities and provinces would have matched the funds. Our Metro Link routes are a good example of that. They came about because of fairly modest federal investments. Don't expect the Tories to change tact anytime soon though as tax credits are their answer to everything (even when they don't work).

There's a huge amount of inequality between different parts of the country because of the ad hoc nature of federal transit funding. Projects are not necessarily treated equally based on their merits, so they are often funded based on political opportunism and sexiness.

On top of this in NS the provincial government does not fund Halifax projects in the same way that BC, Ontario, or other provinces fund their major cities. It is amazing how much of a difference in attitude there is between BC and NS despite the fact that BC covers a larger geographic area.

To put things into perspective, you can look at financing of specific projects. MetroLink was a $13.3M project. HRM paid $8M of that, the federal government picked up $4M, and the province picked up about $1M.

In Vancouver the Canada Line received $450M from the federal government. That is like about 8 MetroLink projects, if we correct for the population of the two cities. The Canada Line opened in 2009 and they are already building another line, the Evergreen Line, in 2012. The Evergreen Line is getting $400M from the federal government, $600M from the province of BC, and $400M from Translink. Of Translink's money, a good chunk is from special parking and fuel taxes.

This disparity is enormous. No wonder why Vancouver has better transit -- Translink is receiving 10 to 20 times more money per capita from the province and federal government for capital expenses. On top of that, Translink has extra powers of taxation.

Part of the blame lies with the federal government, part of it lies with the province for pandering to rural NS, and part of the blame lies with HRM for failing to propose and go after funding for larger projects. HRM leaves a tremendous amount of money on the table due to its lack of vision, direction, and competence.