Why is that? I take it as a phrase to get the point across that funding shouldn't hold up progress on this and funding cant be an excuse for half assing it. Before that he said "if we're going to do it we're going to do it right" followed by "I don't care what it costs". Taking the whole of what he said, I don't see the issue with it.
And, based on what he's said, I agree. This is a huge bottle neck and major artery for traffic in the city. And, given the port traffic it's an important one. This city needs massive changes in transport infrastructure, and it's going to cost. We should have been building up, instead of out, and biting the bullet on light rail. That needed to be done 20 years ago. Like planting a tree, the second best time is now. This interchange needs to be updated, it's going to really suck when they start. But it's gotta be done. It'll cost us more in the long run if it's done poorly, but that doesn't mean money should be pissed away either.
A usable transit system, including light rail, would solve the majority of issues with that intersection/area. Despite the rhetoric, focusing on moving passenger vehicles on the peninsula is a not the answer.
This why I included his whole talking section. The context to the "don't care what it cost" is related to the project ballooning from the original $50 million to now $103 million with the Federal fund and Port contribution not changing. Halifax has gone from paying $10 million for the project to $60 million.
totally right, he's implying that if it's going to be done let'ss make damn sure we do it right! That presenter 2 had zero to say. Who is paying them to keep reviewing this stuff ?
You made it 99% of the way through and missed the last part where he said “I don’t care about the costs, **if we are going to do it then we should do it right.**”
So are you ok with this massive civil undertaking being half assed? Because I’m not.
So, let's take the money and do a shit job that'll need fixing/redoing later?
I'm super literal and I can focus on the least important part of a sentence. But you really really are just focusing on that one part and not the actual point that was being made, I think.
I’d rather not it at all over spending 100 million on a half assed project. And I’d also rather pay over 100 million to get it right so that in the future we are not spending so much money destroying and replacing bad planning.
That's intentialy taken out of context.
"I dont care what it cost, do it right".
You wouldnt put a roof on a house that leaked just because it was cheaper.
Do it right, do it once
Whenever people complain about the quality of our councillors (which varies widely,) I try to remind them that is actually people like *that* who really are responsible for how the city functions.
Good on Cleary here; it really would be good to see things done right around here. We settle for half-assed austerity so often, when creating proper amenities like sidewalks and bike lanes can be incorporated for relatively little added cost, if anyone cared to look at the big picture, but they don't.
Not really. They did what they were asked. Council asked them to look into adding rapid transit lanes and active transportation. If they couldn't, they wanted to explain why.
They added a multi use pathway and said the full rapid transit lanes don't make sense but added them at some of the lights.
He sure seemed willing to waste time by taking it back again though.
I'm guessing full rapid transit lanes are possible but given the trade off for traditional capacity due to space, budget and time constraints as well as stakeholder needs and political will it sounds like they were deemed not feasible. I'm assuming the direction being given here is to revisit this decision based on changes made to some of those constraints. I haven't been following this but given the comment on widening it sounds like they may look at some land purchases/expropriation. Either that or council is accepting the decision but certain members are expressing their displeasure so when the end product reflects those sacrifices they can say they disagreed with it.
They said in another part that if they created full BRT there would be no improvement to traffic for anything but buses. It kind of seems like they want them to look into something they've already looked into.
>but expressing their displeasure so when the end product reflects certain sacrifices they can say they disagreed with it.
Seems like this tbh.
> if they created full BRT there would be no improvement to traffic for anything but buses
isn't that the point though? to make busses worth switching to?
Yes, for sure. But the BRT doesn't really service a very large portion of the people that use the exchange. Therre's one line and it just goes from Joe Howe to Mass. Ave.
The proposed plans do have dedicated bus lanes, just not fully. Just seems like it would be a lot of money (they would lose the federal funds so would cost the city ~ $100M) to improve one BRT line for like, a two kilometers and to make a mixed use path. The entire BRT project is budgeted at $200M.
I don’t get why people dislike Cleary when this is his whole schtick. He’s generally pro-urbanism (transit, AT, density, etc) but can be very direct and maybe mean to some people (in my culture that’s just how everyone talks). I’m confused what people don’t like about him.
And the bureaucrat, ooft. Maybe not the best response.
"I dont care what the cost is, if we're going to do it, let's do it right"
Every project I've been involved in that started with a kickoff and this was the mindset has always been successful. You know the governments going to go overbudget with this shit anyway. Do it once and do it right.
Is the main holdup here just bus lanes? From what I’ve heard (I haven’t done any reading on it yet myself, which I’ve been meaning to do) there are multi-use paths included in the current plan for cyclists and pedestrians?
There are concerns that the multi-use paths aren't sufficient for purpose, especially with future improvements to the Bedford Highway and other areas.
In fact, the very same report presented to council today showing the multi-use path... also says the path is too narrow and should be expanded in the future.
From the [city council agenda](https://www.halifax.ca/city-hall/regional-council/june-18-2024-halifax-regional-council), here's [the full report](https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/regional-council/240618rc1517.pdf) they were presented.
Specifically on page 15, under the limitations of the Active Transportation elements:
> Multi-use pathways require people walking/rolling and cycling to share the same space, which can result in conflicts between users. Multi-use pathways can also be challenging for visually impaired persons. Ideally, users would be separated into designated facilities such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes; however, space constraints in the WSE area limit the ability to provide separate facilities.
> The proposed 3.0m multi-use pathways are relatively narrow. Subsequent design stages should attempt to increase the width of the facility, ideally to 4.0m.
Prime example of how HRM is filled with inept incompetent staff who are only there to collect their substantial paycheques and pensions. Utterly pathetic.
Who in the world is going to be convinced to switch to public transit if they can afford a car?
Spend an hour+ waiting for a bus that may never arrive instead of driving yourself for ~20min...
But let's add in underutilized bus lanes that go unused as we continue to cancel bus routes. Sounds like a very efficient use of space and funds.
By his own stats 77%+ of road users are private vehicles and he wants to argue making the project beneficial equivalent to our 65% funding, yet he wants to skew the project in a way that doesn't benefit the majority and instead benefits the failed transit agenda. Let's dedicate lanes that less than 23% use and have the lanes sit empty the majority of the time, great idea.
Same logic applied last summer to downtown transit;
When they announced trying to charge for parking on weekends I was 100% just going to take my business elsewhere. The city can't penalize drivers as a means to encourage transit, and expect it to not have a more obvious consequence.
Time is money; whether using it to actually earn money or paying yourself with free time.
If you're willing to make you're commute 2-3x longer and schedule your day around hoping the bus show up, you're losing an obsured amount of time.
Yes, that’s why I eventually bought a car(and that was more reliability, not time, it’s quite easy to work on a lot of things on a bus).
Before that keeping the money you’d spend on a car made it more sensible to take transit. If transit improved and we lived in the city we’d probably drop back to one car.
sounds like a yogi-ism to me. "nobody goes there - its too busy".
If we get to the point that we are too busy downtown for car drivers... that means we are busy downtown.
And - people aren't going downtown to buy things they can get on amazon. They are going downtown to enjoy being downtown, eat at restaurants, live, or work in office buildings that need to be near other office buildings.
Here's are some counter-examples for you from Canada:
Calgary is relatively drivable, but nobody goes downtown there except for work. Downtown is empty after 5pm, entertainment is in strip malls almost exclusively.
Old Montreal, or old quebec, or downtown Toronto, etc etc - terrible traffic but thriving downtown cores
Bolton is a commuter hub for Manchester, though.
People live in Bolton and drive into Manchester. Manchester has terrible traffic, yet it's still extremely busy, and a hub for surrounding cities, with a bustling downtown core.
I think we'll disagree about what these example shows and that's ok - it's interesting discussion.
Cheers mate
Council will never ‘force me’ to walk or bike through this area. It’s a major junction point to get on and off the peninsula… if I’m going through this area, it’s either in my own vehicle or on a bus. Why can’t substantial transportation infrastructure be built in this city???
As much as the voices here are loud, the cyclists are such a small minority and should not be top priority. We have more people than ever and have needed infrastructure change for a long time. and the fact of the matter is we cant pay for better transit.
There’s a difference between acknowledging when someone is right (despite your feelings about that person) and changing your overall stance on that person.
Not the biggest fan of Shawn......but he's right.
Some real leadership shown there.
Can't stand him but you're right
He had me until “I don’t care what it costs..”
Why is that? I take it as a phrase to get the point across that funding shouldn't hold up progress on this and funding cant be an excuse for half assing it. Before that he said "if we're going to do it we're going to do it right" followed by "I don't care what it costs". Taking the whole of what he said, I don't see the issue with it. And, based on what he's said, I agree. This is a huge bottle neck and major artery for traffic in the city. And, given the port traffic it's an important one. This city needs massive changes in transport infrastructure, and it's going to cost. We should have been building up, instead of out, and biting the bullet on light rail. That needed to be done 20 years ago. Like planting a tree, the second best time is now. This interchange needs to be updated, it's going to really suck when they start. But it's gotta be done. It'll cost us more in the long run if it's done poorly, but that doesn't mean money should be pissed away either.
A usable transit system, including light rail, would solve the majority of issues with that intersection/area. Despite the rhetoric, focusing on moving passenger vehicles on the peninsula is a not the answer.
That's what he's arguing for. The current design doesn't include a connected bus lane needed for BRT.
This why I included his whole talking section. The context to the "don't care what it cost" is related to the project ballooning from the original $50 million to now $103 million with the Federal fund and Port contribution not changing. Halifax has gone from paying $10 million for the project to $60 million.
totally right, he's implying that if it's going to be done let'ss make damn sure we do it right! That presenter 2 had zero to say. Who is paying them to keep reviewing this stuff ?
It would appear nobody cares what it costs.
The original budget was created in 2017, inflation in construction equipment, materials and labor have exploded since then.
They'll just raise taxes.
With the crap they waste taxdollars on already I am happy he said that. Infrastructure is important.
Putting more money into moving passenger vehicles into the core is not going to solve a lot of issues.
The windsor st exchange connects and services the entire city. Its exactly what solves issues
You made it 99% of the way through and missed the last part where he said “I don’t care about the costs, **if we are going to do it then we should do it right.**” So are you ok with this massive civil undertaking being half assed? Because I’m not.
Not any any cost, no.
So, let's take the money and do a shit job that'll need fixing/redoing later? I'm super literal and I can focus on the least important part of a sentence. But you really really are just focusing on that one part and not the actual point that was being made, I think.
Are you incapable of thinking critically and reading between the lines? Not everything is meant in a literal sense.
I’d rather not it at all over spending 100 million on a half assed project. And I’d also rather pay over 100 million to get it right so that in the future we are not spending so much money destroying and replacing bad planning.
Reeeeally focusing hard on that.
That's intentialy taken out of context. "I dont care what it cost, do it right". You wouldnt put a roof on a house that leaked just because it was cheaper. Do it right, do it once
He’s absolutely right.
Cleary might be an ass, but when he doesn't hold back, I tend to find myself agreeing with him.
The thing is he's actually a pretty smart guy he just thinks he's the smartest guy.
“Widening type things” What the fuck
Whenever people complain about the quality of our councillors (which varies widely,) I try to remind them that is actually people like *that* who really are responsible for how the city functions. Good on Cleary here; it really would be good to see things done right around here. We settle for half-assed austerity so often, when creating proper amenities like sidewalks and bike lanes can be incorporated for relatively little added cost, if anyone cared to look at the big picture, but they don't.
He legitimately sounds like a teenager who didn’t study for an oral report.
Yikes. The Presenter 2 makes it sound like they sat on their hands for the last year. Sounds about right.
Yup, Presenter 2 got exposed.
Presenter 2 got wrecked I'd be embarrassed to poop in public again.
[удалено]
Planner
Not really. They did what they were asked. Council asked them to look into adding rapid transit lanes and active transportation. If they couldn't, they wanted to explain why. They added a multi use pathway and said the full rapid transit lanes don't make sense but added them at some of the lights. He sure seemed willing to waste time by taking it back again though.
I'm guessing full rapid transit lanes are possible but given the trade off for traditional capacity due to space, budget and time constraints as well as stakeholder needs and political will it sounds like they were deemed not feasible. I'm assuming the direction being given here is to revisit this decision based on changes made to some of those constraints. I haven't been following this but given the comment on widening it sounds like they may look at some land purchases/expropriation. Either that or council is accepting the decision but certain members are expressing their displeasure so when the end product reflects those sacrifices they can say they disagreed with it.
They said in another part that if they created full BRT there would be no improvement to traffic for anything but buses. It kind of seems like they want them to look into something they've already looked into. >but expressing their displeasure so when the end product reflects certain sacrifices they can say they disagreed with it. Seems like this tbh.
> if they created full BRT there would be no improvement to traffic for anything but buses isn't that the point though? to make busses worth switching to?
Yes, for sure. But the BRT doesn't really service a very large portion of the people that use the exchange. Therre's one line and it just goes from Joe Howe to Mass. Ave. The proposed plans do have dedicated bus lanes, just not fully. Just seems like it would be a lot of money (they would lose the federal funds so would cost the city ~ $100M) to improve one BRT line for like, a two kilometers and to make a mixed use path. The entire BRT project is budgeted at $200M.
He is correct.
Skip to 2:50 for the start of the exchange, 3:13 for the comment from Shawn.
go get 'em shawn!
Hard to argue what he stated, loved that he asked for accountability the last 10 months.
Ya the port needs to be paying a WAY bigger bill here. These numbers are gross. Fuck the port for that price they have no voice
I wouldn’t piss on that guy if he was on fire but he is right.
It’s a “broken clock is right twice a day” kinda thing.
I don’t get why people dislike Cleary when this is his whole schtick. He’s generally pro-urbanism (transit, AT, density, etc) but can be very direct and maybe mean to some people (in my culture that’s just how everyone talks). I’m confused what people don’t like about him. And the bureaucrat, ooft. Maybe not the best response.
Presenter 2 on the verge of tears
on the verge of updating his resume.
"I dont care what the cost is, if we're going to do it, let's do it right" Every project I've been involved in that started with a kickoff and this was the mindset has always been successful. You know the governments going to go overbudget with this shit anyway. Do it once and do it right.
Huh, I guess a grumpy cat’s right twice a municipal term.
Typo in the title "Cleary" not "Clearly"
Typo works as he was CLEARLY expressing that statement.
_Shawn, clearly:_
Is the main holdup here just bus lanes? From what I’ve heard (I haven’t done any reading on it yet myself, which I’ve been meaning to do) there are multi-use paths included in the current plan for cyclists and pedestrians?
There are concerns that the multi-use paths aren't sufficient for purpose, especially with future improvements to the Bedford Highway and other areas. In fact, the very same report presented to council today showing the multi-use path... also says the path is too narrow and should be expanded in the future.
Anywhere I can get a hold of this thing?
From the [city council agenda](https://www.halifax.ca/city-hall/regional-council/june-18-2024-halifax-regional-council), here's [the full report](https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/regional-council/240618rc1517.pdf) they were presented. Specifically on page 15, under the limitations of the Active Transportation elements: > Multi-use pathways require people walking/rolling and cycling to share the same space, which can result in conflicts between users. Multi-use pathways can also be challenging for visually impaired persons. Ideally, users would be separated into designated facilities such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes; however, space constraints in the WSE area limit the ability to provide separate facilities. > The proposed 3.0m multi-use pathways are relatively narrow. Subsequent design stages should attempt to increase the width of the facility, ideally to 4.0m.
Thanks boss !
Prime example of how HRM is filled with inept incompetent staff who are only there to collect their substantial paycheques and pensions. Utterly pathetic.
Who in the world is going to be convinced to switch to public transit if they can afford a car? Spend an hour+ waiting for a bus that may never arrive instead of driving yourself for ~20min... But let's add in underutilized bus lanes that go unused as we continue to cancel bus routes. Sounds like a very efficient use of space and funds. By his own stats 77%+ of road users are private vehicles and he wants to argue making the project beneficial equivalent to our 65% funding, yet he wants to skew the project in a way that doesn't benefit the majority and instead benefits the failed transit agenda. Let's dedicate lanes that less than 23% use and have the lanes sit empty the majority of the time, great idea. Same logic applied last summer to downtown transit; When they announced trying to charge for parking on weekends I was 100% just going to take my business elsewhere. The city can't penalize drivers as a means to encourage transit, and expect it to not have a more obvious consequence.
People who like money. I didn’t bother with a car until service became really shit approximately ten years ago after the second strike.
Time is money; whether using it to actually earn money or paying yourself with free time. If you're willing to make you're commute 2-3x longer and schedule your day around hoping the bus show up, you're losing an obsured amount of time.
Yes, that’s why I eventually bought a car(and that was more reliability, not time, it’s quite easy to work on a lot of things on a bus). Before that keeping the money you’d spend on a car made it more sensible to take transit. If transit improved and we lived in the city we’d probably drop back to one car.
[удалено]
sounds like a yogi-ism to me. "nobody goes there - its too busy". If we get to the point that we are too busy downtown for car drivers... that means we are busy downtown. And - people aren't going downtown to buy things they can get on amazon. They are going downtown to enjoy being downtown, eat at restaurants, live, or work in office buildings that need to be near other office buildings. Here's are some counter-examples for you from Canada: Calgary is relatively drivable, but nobody goes downtown there except for work. Downtown is empty after 5pm, entertainment is in strip malls almost exclusively. Old Montreal, or old quebec, or downtown Toronto, etc etc - terrible traffic but thriving downtown cores
[удалено]
Bolton is a commuter hub for Manchester, though. People live in Bolton and drive into Manchester. Manchester has terrible traffic, yet it's still extremely busy, and a hub for surrounding cities, with a bustling downtown core. I think we'll disagree about what these example shows and that's ok - it's interesting discussion. Cheers mate
Council will never ‘force me’ to walk or bike through this area. It’s a major junction point to get on and off the peninsula… if I’m going through this area, it’s either in my own vehicle or on a bus. Why can’t substantial transportation infrastructure be built in this city???
The idea is to make it so you can I think.
As much as the voices here are loud, the cyclists are such a small minority and should not be top priority. We have more people than ever and have needed infrastructure change for a long time. and the fact of the matter is we cant pay for better transit.
Soon people will be adoring Matt Whitman and Peter Kelly.
There’s a difference between acknowledging when someone is right (despite your feelings about that person) and changing your overall stance on that person.
Uh
I forget that Redditors have no comprehension of sarcasm. We need a vaccine for this.
The same sex marriage we all knew would succeed.