Reader discretion is advised.

The purpose of this post is to expose the wretched and rancid state of a specific Metro Transit bus shelter in Halifax. This is no ordinary transit shelter; This is the main bus stop at one of the most important intersections in the city.

The corner of Spring Garden Road and Barrington Street is the core of downtown Halifax. As the nearest bus stop to two 5-Star downtown hotels (the Sheraton Four Points and the Marriott Courtyard), it is located where tourists walk up from the Waterfront to take pictures of the Saint Mary’s Basilica on their route to shopping, food, and entertainment.

It is located where workers and business people conduct their affairs in and around one of the largest business towers in Halifax (the Maritime/Aliant Building). It is located where residents from all corners of the city permeate back and forth between retail shopping and restaurants located on both streets. There is one enclosed bus shelter that services this bus stop, with 21 different bus routes aptly servicing it throughout the day.

So behold! Here is Metro Transit’s bus shelter servicing this premium intersection of the only two main streets in downtown Halifax.

(Click to enlarge. If you dare.)

I take the bus daily in this corner of the city. Five days a week at approximately 8:30 AM, I am faced with the same dilemma. Do I stand outside and battle the infamous 50km mini-hurricanes of what is known as the ‘windiest spot in Halifax’? Or do I suppress my gagging and take refuge in this urine-infested, garbage-ridden cesspool of municipal neglect?

When it is raining or snowing, it is common for transit passengers on this corner to compete for the ‘sweet spot‘ in this shelter.  That spot near the door that allows you to hide half your body inside from the harshness of the weather, while giving you the access to quickly stick your head out for precious gasps of fresh air.  We all give each other half-knowing looks to acknowledge the mutual discomfort from the stench of urine and organic decay of garbage that has been left there since last summer.

An older gentleman has secured the sweet spot today, but tomorrow I am going to wake up five minutes early and beat him to it.

Given the importance of this intersection, you would think that the city would pay extra attention to it and make sure that it reflects the best face Halifax can offer. After all, if tourists, shoppers, and business people are not really the ‘crowd’ the city should care about in the downtown district, then who exactly should we bother giving a good experience to in the heart of the business, shopping, and entertainment district?

Yet, it would seem that the universe of municipal priorities rotates differently in Halifax, specifically when it comes to Transit services.

So, this is a call out to:

• Metro Transit
• City Council (in particular our incumbent downtown councilor)
• Downtown Halifax Business Commission (DHBC)

Can you come up with a permanent solution to this embarrassment already? What is it going to take to put up and maintain a proper bus shelter in this sensitive intersection?

I realize that this is the city’s job, but the DHBC has a lot at stake here, so I’m not sure why they’re holding themselves hostage to the general mediocrity of our municipal services, Metro Transit, and city council. A small donation collected from downtown businesses can fund a fantastic structure worthy of this location and its significance. It can be a shelter that’s a joy to use and look at.

Perhaps even a bus shelter with (gasp!) a wall map of the downtown district and nearby attractions? Or (double gasp!) an electronic screen displaying bus departure and arrival information? Slap some sponsor advertising on it and Bob’s your uncle. Anything is better than the current status-quo!

(Click to enlarge photo)

CBC.ca reported yesterday (Feb 2, 2009) that Halifax Metro Transit has refused to allow Humanist Canada to place ads on Halifax buses that said “You Can Be Good Without God”.

CBC reported that Halifax bus transit spokesperson, Lori Patterson, said “the transit authority would reconsider its position if Humanist Canada toned down its message.”

The story has garnered close to 300 comments in less than 24 hours. A similar campaign launched in England late last year sparked an important debate across the UK. The controversy led to 326 complaints from the public to the UK Advertising Standards Authority, which issued a precedent-setting decision in favor of the campaign and closed the case (see ruling here).

This story is obviously of major interest to the public. So why the silent treatment from Halifax newspapers?

If local residents relied on local newspapers, they would have no idea that this debate is taking place, and would have no opportunity to express their opinions about how the transit authority, a publicly funded body, should deal with issues of freedom of speech and religion that are a given right to all tax payers in Halifax who contribute to subsidize the transit authority.

The media needs to ask the tough questions. Would the transit authority allow an ad to be placed on Halifax buses that advertise a ‘Three Wisemen’ or ‘Baby Jesus’ Christmas play at the local church? What if the local Muslim association wanted to run an ad to announce the opening of their new mosque and library and inviting all interested people to join them for an opening ceremony? What about free speech?

Where do we draw the line as to what is appropriate to say, and who gets to decide what a ‘toned down’ religious statement is? Lori Patterson of Metro Transit?

The answer is that unless there are clear bylaws (that were voted on by representatives of the people in this city) against allowing religiously-affiliated advertising in publicly owned facilities and services, then separation of church and state remains the defacto rule.

If Metro Transit was a private company, then they can decide to run whatever ads they want on their buses and no one but their shareholders (and the advertising authorities) can say anything. But the transit authority is publicly funded, and therefore it must conduct itself in the best interest of the public, following the established bylaws, and removing personal opinions and religious affiliations/preferences when determining what is appropriate to be shown on the buses to the public.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms”:

• freedom of conscience and religion;

• freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

• freedom of peaceful assembly; and

• freedom of association.

Are we going to see the appropriate attention and debate take place regarding this issue? Will our understanding of applied freedoms be enhanced by this event? This is a call to the Chronicle Herald and other media outlets in Halifax. Please give this issue the attention it deserves. (Edit: The Chronicle Herald published the story a couple of hours after this blog was posted).

The latest city council meeting on Tuesday December 9 has provided the media with much fodder. Among the blunders was a report from city staff that studied increasing transit service to suburban and rural areas and recommended that the cost be paid for more by those residents who live in those areas. The suggestion follows the ongoing effort by the tax-reform committee to introduce a service-based tax system in the city instead of the current system that doesn’t take into consideration the cost of providing certain services in one area or another, and the availability of those services when the tax is paid.

City councilors expressed their ‘concerns’ about staff’s recommendation, to say the least of their reaction.

What they might not know is that Metro Transit already undertakes a service-based cost/revenue structure with certain parts of their service, but I doubt many people know this.

Let’s take the example of when the U-Pass was implemented to provide Halifax students with unlimited bus usage. In the negotiation process, the student union and the university administration agreed to impose a flat bus pass fee on all full-time students at SMU, regardless if they use the bus or not. In return, SMU asked Metro Transit to provide better service to the university, and unlimited access for 8 months of the year to students who want to use the bus.

Ultimately, a deal was reached where SMU students paid for the full cost of the extra servicing, which was collected through the annual UPass fee. This is public information available in articles that appeared in the university student paper in 2003 when the UPass was launched.

SMU students ultimately ended up paying for the full (unsubsidized) annual cost of the additional services, regardless of the fact that the buses were used by more than SMU students alone, and were existing buses that are already subsidized as part of the transit money the city gives to metro transit. While seemingly unfair, the overall benefit outweighed the cost. Transit ridership gradually increased as more students adopted the new mode and left their cars at home. Less parking spaces were required in and around the university, allowing for more academic buildings and less street congestion.

The precedent has been set for a pay-per-service system. And while the cost of the pass was higher than what it should be, everybody won in the end, and all universities in Halifax launched the UPass in following years under the same fee structure.

So, let’s talk about the application of a service-based tax system in relation to transit services.

A service-based tax is a good idea, especially for transit. Transit is one of those services that can easily be linked to the elusive goal of good and environmentally-sustainable urban design. And so the question of transit planning is ultimately linked to the question of property taxes and their effect on housing distribution and sustainable service densities.

I understand why rural and suburban residents want good public transit options (who doesn’t!). But it must be provided at a higher expense to their tax area (albeit, not without first resolving the question of affordable housing for low-income families, as described further in this comment).

Extending bus lines to every nook and cranny in HRM, then loading the cost of that on all residents regardless of their location, is a recipe that awards suburban sprawl. This backward and reactive strategy has no place in planning a city ready for the challenges of the 21st century; A city with an eye for a prosperous future.

Our local government should work more at creating tax and service incentives to encourage people to live together more sustainably in higher-density communities. HRM staff knows this, common sense dictates this, and scientific evidence supports this.

Yet, people are reluctant to swallow penalties for unsustainable residential choices. They want to live in the quiet country-side large house with a sprawling back yard overlooking a lake, AND they want all the services that a city dweller with smaller quarters and higher rents/taxes gets, AND they want good roads and transportation options to travel back and forth from their oasis to their city work, AND they want to pay less tax than urban dwellers!!

Effect on Low-Income Families:

The argument that charging a higher tax to deliver services to rural or less-populated areas will negatively affect low-income families (who can’t afford to live in the urban core) is a critique that has been misplaced.  This is an issue that relates to the lack of affordable housing for low-income families, not an argument against service-based taxation.

The potential negative effects on low-income households can be solved with a more equitable tax structure in the urban core along with a commitment by local government to provide affordable housing for low income families throughout the urban districts.

Affordable housing and services can exist in the urban core only with a service-based tax system that allows city hall to redirect its tax revenues into creating housing solutions instead of exhausting city budgets on building and maintaining extensive road networks to service few residents scattered all around on the outskirts of a sprawling city.  The city can also use the new tax structure to provide tax incentives to encourage (or even mandate) developers to include affordable or mixed-income housing within their development projects.

Think about it: a low-income family can now live in the urban core, AND take advantage of lower service costs (due to the higher number of people who are splitting that cost between them in higher density urban areas), AND pay an equivalent tax rate to that which they were paying while living in rural districts.  Wouldn’t that be a good thing? They can live closer to work, have better access to public transportation, schools, health care, entertainment, etc.  These are all factors that contribute to that coveted ‘quality of life’ index that Nova Scotia promotes as one of the main attractions to living here.

The current tax system only helps to encourage the creation of ghettoized districts, where low income families are forced to collect in specific areas due to the financial incentive that the government inadvertently creates with a tax structure based on property value. Just ask France about how well it worked out for them to create suburban pockets in Paris where the cost of living was lower than in the city core!

So let’s not say no to a service-based tax system that will benefit everyone in the long run and will bring us closer to an environmentally, fiscally, and socially sustainable city. Instead, let’s take this opportunity to inscribe urban solutions to the low-income housing situation as part of the overall effort to move the city into the new tax structure. The structure that rewards dense community living with financial savings that allow the implementation of excellent public transit options and everything else that our city deserves.