The Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA) has taken a surprise position on the expansion and improvement of the South Park Street bike lane: they’re against it. At least they are against the disruption to available on-street parking that it might cause.
In a letter to city council dated March 5, 2018 (the day before council gave the project the official green light) the Vice President of Integrated Services for the health authority, Paula Bond, carefully outlined concerns over the plan to “eliminate 50 parking spaces on South Park Street to create dedicated bike lanes.”
The position is surprising coming from a health authority. In general, organizations with health in their mandate are supportive of bike lanes, particularly the protected kind that appeal to all ages and abilities of riders, thereby tending to increase their numbers. (Here are a couple of doctors explaining in the Toronto Star the widely held position that, “cycling is very effective in promoting good physical and mental health, and it’s precisely infrastructure like protected lanes that makes widespread bike use possible.”)
But we don’t even need to go westward to be surprised. The NSHA position seems contrary to many a provincial strategy document as well. Both “Thrive! A plan for a healthier Nova Scotia (2012)” and “Choose How You Move: Sustainable Transportation Strategy (2013)” call for growing the number of us using active transportation to get around by building biking and walking into our infrastructure.
The “Choose How You Move” strategy is even so bold as to suggest the province can “lead by example”:
But really, we don’t even need to go outside the health authority to be surprised about the letter opposing the South Park bike lane. In 2012, Capital Health, the IWK, and Dalhousie and Saint Mary’s Universities created a bikeways plan for what they called the “urban Halifax institutional district.” It included, you guessed it, bike lanes along South Park Street.
“The Institutional District has characteristics that make it unique within HRM as a destination able to attract a significant increase in cycling with the proper support,” reads the plan.
Those unique qualities include the central location of the area, the power of institutions to enact transportation demand management strategies, and the high number of low-hanging fruit (with 40,000 single occupancy vehicle trips per day.)
To be fair, the NSHA letter does not directly disavow bike lanes or active transportation. The letter congratulates council on passing the Integrated Mobility Plan, saying the IMP is “aligned with our organizational vision.” (That makes sense, since an NSHA staffer was actually a member of the team that wrote the IMP.)
But then the litany of disadvantages begins, starting with, “the QEII Health Sciences Centre is a very busy place,” and going on to describe the very real problem of parking overcapacity at the VG site during peak clinic hours.
Of course, patients, staff, and doctors do need to get to the hospital. But will this protected bike lane plan make that easier or harder? How much will it exacerbate parking overcapacity? How many spots are we even talking about? The NSHA’s letter says 50. The city staff report, which has been publicly available for many weeks, says 55, so we’ll go with that.
Of that total, 25 spots will be lost north of Spring Garden Road, placing them over a half kilometre away from the VG site, and very close to the YMCA/Pavillion development, which will include 70 new public parking spots.
The street parking along South Park directly in front of the VG site (or directly in front of its surface parking lot, with 1,043 off-street spots) will remain. That’s because the vehicle lanes between Morris and South Streets are currently a whopping 6.1 metres wide, with plenty of room to accommodate parking-protected bike lanes. (The width of those lanes might explain why South Park’s speeds are so darn high. The city measured an average speed of 41 km/hr and an 85th percentile speed of 51 km/hr, meaning 15 per cent of people are driving faster than that.)
The remaining 30 on-street spots will be lost from South to Inglis Streets, where only one side of the street will retain parking.
So it’s fair to say that this bike lane will cost the NSHA about 30 on-street, time-limited parking spots south of South Street. Meanwhile, the Margaretta development on Clyde Street will add 104 underground, all-day, public parking spaces.
Bond also expresses concern over the added complication of the QEII redevelopment, wherein the VG and Centennial buildings will be demolished, and services moved to the Hants Community Hospital, Dartmouth General, Bayers Lake, and the Halifax Infirmary. It’s hard to see how 30 street parking spots south of South Street will help or hinder that process, but Bond and the NSHA seem to think they will.
There are a couple of key things to be concerned about here. One is the questionable method of cost-benefit analysis that is being used by the health authority. It is reminiscent of the one applied during the locating of NSHA’s new outpatient clinic in Bayers Lake. That is, a high premium is being placed on parking spots, and a low premium on safe, connected active transportation options.
The other is the apparent inability to see the bike lane project for the opportunity it could be, especially at the outset of this QEII redevelopment.
HRM is not aiming to increase the number of us using active transportation simply for our health or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It’s aiming to increase active transportation because we’ve finally figured out we can’t afford to build enough roads to keep up with demand, and so we desperately need to diversify how we get around. If its letter to council is any indication, the NSHA has yet to see (or has forgotten) that it cannot possibly afford to build to accommodate demand for parking.
This bike lane, or more precisely the network it will be part of, has the potential to convert well over 30 NSHA staff to another trip mode for their commute. Instead of listing concerns over a few dozen parking spaces, the letter should have committed the NSHA to its part in reducing parking demand and shifting staff and healthy patients to active modes of transportation. And it should have demanded that the city take it one step further, by bringing the full protected network to fruition, so that the doctors, nurses, staff, and patients of the QEII have a viable alternative in cycling.
I just wish people would read. I wish council would read.
THERE WAS AN OPTION ON THE TABLE THAT GAVE US A SEPARATED BIKE LANE. AND. KEPT THE PARKING, BURIED THE POWER LINES AND WAS BETTER FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST CYCLISTS…. and that option wasn’t even given the benefit of being costed out.
It really is shameful.
I’m all for – couldn’t be any MORE for a separated bike lane. Its just that I sincerely believe we could have done it better.
When we learn to be inclusive and inquisitive rather than exclusive and insulting we might actually get somewhere.
Option 2 will require the loss of 55 parking spaces. You describe Option 2A as allowing us to “[build] the separated bike lane AND [keep] on-street parking”. But Option 2A would still result in the loss of 38 parking spaces.
That’s only a difference of 17 spaces. The report suggests that the added complexity of 2A would have increased the cost. Also, all the spaces that would be saved by Option 2A are located at the north end of South Park Street, some distance away from the hospital.
I don’t think there is much of a need for commuter cycling dedicated lanes or commuter facilities. Better to concentrate funds on skill level and safety for all ages. Better to concentrate on off street multi use recreational facilities. These will all be well used by cyclists, and these facilities gives cyclists an opportunity to improve their skill level, safely.
I would expect the Health Authority may object to the dirty air pedestrians and cyclists breathe from the mostly commuter traffic.
Removing on-street parking often has positive effects for businesses. Some people won’t go downtown if they can’t easily park for free in front of the business they want to visit (even though they’ll happily park in the distant reaches of a mall or big box lot). Other people won’t go downtown if they can’t be dropped off or picked up at a business, by a friend or cab (because access is blocked by on street parking), or the streets are unpleasant due to parked cars and racing traffic, or crossing streets is made harder by parked cars and people trying to park (not always in legal spaces), or the bus access is lousy, or cycling in that area is difficult. Reducing on-street parking will lose a few customers, but may gain more. There are some studies here: https://www.triplepundit.com/special/business-of-biking/
I’m not sure I’d call Spring Garden Road magical, but the mix of shops and services is great, and unlike Quinpool road you can actually cross the street without going several blocks out of your way.
Regardless of the connection between businesses and on-street parking, the position of the health authority is curious. Obviously not everyone can walk or bicycle to the hospitals. However, for those that can, it is a healthier option, and something that should be promoted. Designing our cities on the assumption that everyone can or should drive is gradually being recognized as a mistake, for many reasons, and change is needed.
Side comment. Years ago I gave up driving to the Barrington Street/Spring Garden Road area. Takes longer to find parking than to perform errand. I walk there, being fortunate enough to live in Dartmouth near the ferry. Haven’t worked out a bus connection that works for me, but as I get older no doubt that’s in my future. .
This is an inflammatory headline. I am ALL FOR separated bike lanes. I also feel strongly that we are not doing this one correctly. We didn’t even cost out option 2 a.
We have a failure of imagination and the tunnel vision that comes with a single mission. This is no different than the zealots behind other initiatives in OUR city who railroad things through. Would you be such a doormat for the convention centre?
No its not a long stretch of road. But IMAGINE if we buried the lines and lost the power poles as part of this plan. IMAGINE building the separated bike lane AND keeping on-street parking. IMAGINE thinking bigger and more long-term and doing what is right for everyone. I don’t even own a car at the moment. But I also know what its like to need to pick up large or heavy items at Thronbloom or Petes and also what its like to try to help an elderly person into the salon. We need on-street parking. Moreover the magic of Halifax lives in the shops on Spring Garden Road.
Whether we like it or not many people simply wont go downtown if they can’t park easily. And many women feel unsafe in parkades and underground parking. These businesses give our city its colour. They are preominately locally owned and female led. They already pay more than 18 times the tax per square foot of the mulitnationals in Dartmouth Crossing and Bayers Lake.
Yet HRM staff wouldn’t even bother to cost out the option that would work for everyone.
Think about that.
Yes you can write an inflammatory headline. But when you do that you signficantly reduce the level of discourse in this city. And that’s a disappointment to those of us coutning on you to NOT be cheerleaders for the status quo just like other media outlets.
A cheerleader for any side is still a cheerleader. Is that really who you want to be?
This is an inflammatory headline. I am ALL FOR separated bike lanes. I als feel strongly that we are not doing this one correctly. We didn’t even cost out option 2 a.
I feel we have a failure of imagination and the tunnel vision that comes with a single mission. No its not a long stretch. But IMAGINE if we buried the lines and lost the power poles as part of this plan. IMAGINE building the separated bike lane AND keeping on-street parking. IMAGINE thinking bigger and more long term and doing what is right for everyone. I don’t even own a car. But I also know that its like to need to pick up large or heavy items at Thronbloom or Petes and also what its like to try to help an elderly person into the salon. And we need on street parking. Moreover the magic of Halifax lives in the shops on Spring Garden Road.
Whether we like it or not many people simply wont go downtown if they can’t park easily. And many women feel unsafe in parkades and underground parking. These businesses give our city its colour. They are preominately locally owned and female led. They already pay more than 18 times the tax per square foot of the mulitnationals in Dartmouth Crossing and Bayers Lake.
Yet HRM staff wouldn’t even bother to cost out the option that would work for everyone.
Think about that.
Yes you can write an inflammatory headline. But when you do that you signficantly reduce the level of discourse in this city. And that’s a disappointment to those of us coutning on you to NOT be cheerleaders for the status quo just like other media outlets.
A cheerleader for any side is still a cheerleader. Is that really who you want to be?
I follow most of what you’re saying, Ms Minnikin, but not all.
At the end you seem to be saying Ms Butler is a “cheerleader for the status quo.” Wouldn’t the status quo involve maintaining the present system of unprotected paint strips masquerading as bike lanes? I think Ms Butler is fairly clearly in favour of a change from the present system toward protected bike lanes and the elimination of the parking spots referenced in the article. (And the NSHA seems to be in favour of pro-bike change as well, but the Mar 5/18 letter suggests that support is more general in nature and can be withdrawn when actual infrastructure is being discussed. Whether that half-in, half-out support warrants the use of “craps on healthy transportation” in the headline is debatable, I guess.)
Also, regarding your suggestion “the magic of Halifax lives in the shops on Spring Garden Road.” If asked what’s magical about my city, shops on SGR wouldn’t cross my mind for a second. And I can’t think of anyone in my professional or social circles who’d point to SGR shops as magical, either. We all run with different crowds, but it’s an overly broad statement to apply to an entire city.
Perhaps Erica’s headline is a bit inflammatory, but, as a long time, subscribed reader of The Examiner, I find it to be fairly typical of The Examiners tongue and cheek style. And the sub headline clarifies things. Not only that, Erica’s article clearly exposes the corporate nature of the Health Authority and it’s blinkered view of things. No big picture thinking there. Imagine!
Thousands and thousands of people visit Spring Garden Rd weekly. Most do not use cars. It is beyond classism and elitism to say “Moreover the magic of Halifax lives in the shops on Spring Garden Road.” That’s such a steaming pile of horse pucky I’m not even sure where to start. What about all the students? The impoverished, destitute, and disenfranchised? What about me? Living with disabilities, no car, little money but loving the Central Library, I am downtown several times a week. That is the Spring Garden Rd I know.
I’m curious to know, do you exclusively support small business? Never shop at big box stores? Never shop over the internet? If so, I’m impressed. I strive for that but financial issues require that I do have to shop big box occasionally.
Discourse is also improved by being clear in your writing, proper spelling, punctuation and so on. That’s a hint, just in case you missed it.
And what do you have against cheerleaders? Jeesh, didn’t make the team and still bitter?