The Windsor Street Exchange

On January 28, Regional Council was presented with the functional design of the Windsor Street Exchange (report here).

Previous council had asked for changes to the functional design, which was approved in principle in June of 2024. The changes requested included AAA bike lanes, walking paths, and dedicated transit priority lanes - also known as BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) lanes for a future BRT Green Line. In the current functional design, that wasn't possible.

In the end, a multi-use path (MUP) could be added to accommodate active transportation, and a single dedicated bus lane could be added inbound, towards downtown. Other options were considered to achieve dedicated bus lanes in both directions; road widening, and lane reallocation. There were substantial challenges with both scenarios. Ultimately, time and space were limiting factors, and all of the requests from council could not be achieved in the functional design - which, again, had already been approved in principle in 2024 (report here).

Councillor Cuttell added an amendment to include the second bus lane as future work, so that a true BRT line could be achieved in both directions. With this amendment, we could still retain the time-sensitive funding of $23,500,000 from Transport Canada’s National Trade Corridor’s Fund (for the transport of goods from the Port of Halifax) as well as the additional $10,750,000 from the province. Staff commented that the amendment made sense, as the Windsor Street Exchange would happen in phases, and the additional work could be added as a phase. This idea was (in my view) bolstered by the fact that the project team was reviewing opportunities to future-proof the design such that road widening (for the addition of a dedicated transit lane) could be incorporated at a future date. The amendment passed almost unanimously, but the motion itself failed. There are a number of reasons why, so let’s talk about it.

First and foremost, in the view of opposing councillors, BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) needs to be prioritized above all else. In order for transit to be successful, it needs to be faster, cheaper and safer than other forms of transportation. I cannot dispute that position, because it’s true. Moreover, effective transit is essential to Halifax’s success, and I would support -  and do support - transit infrastructure across HRM.

Having said that, I do believe that BRT is still a nebulous idea. In the only map of BRT on HRM’s website, the BRT Green Line doesn’t appear to go all the way through the Windsor Street Exchange. Is there a future where it could? Yes. Do we have everything mapped out to confirm it's necessary? In my opinion, no.

In all fairness, the Windsor Street Exchange is identified as a potential transit priority corridor in the IMP - the Integrated Mobility Plan. However, it’s not the only one. There are 12 other strategic mobility corridors outlined in the 2025/2026 draft capital budget plan. Only five of those (Alderney, Bedford Hwy, Dutch Village Rd, Herring Cove Rd, and Robie and Young) are due to begin this year at a cost of $29,250,000 including land acquisition (and that is not the total cost of those 5 corridors, that’s just the amount for this budget year).

For comparison, the entire street recapitalization budget for the same year is $63,850,000.  Maintaining two streams of transportation (excluding active transportation and AAA bike lanes) is very expensive, and will necessarily have to be staggered. It will take time before we see the IMP completed. This is true whether we include another dedicated bus lane in Windsor Street Exchange in the first iteration or not.

Loosely tied to this plan and the following amendment is the objection to road widening. The logic is simple; every time you add a lane for vehicle traffic, you’re predicting a future of having to add another lane for vehicle traffic. You cannot solve traffic problems with roads alone; transit needs to be prioritized first. Again, I cannot dispute that logic, as it’s true. 

In the case of the Windsor Street Exchange, however, I believe that logic has limited utility. The Port of Halifax cannot use transit, and the original source of funding for the entire project came from the Port of Halifax's need for better infrastructure. Also, I'm obliged to point out that even if the whole IMP was implemented tomorrow, rural commuter districts like District 13 would still have to rely on cars. With exactly one bus stop in the entire district, and limited service to only commuter hours, residents of District 13 have taken to Instagram to share their hilarious but frightening experience with Halifax Transit.

Other objections were also raised, including the 'ballooning cost' of the project. The project was initially greenlit in 2019 with a $10,000,000 contribution from HRM. The current cost of the plan for the municipality is $53,750,000. That's a big difference, but time and scope change are clearly the major contributors. Living our values, where we do the right thing one time, and include BRT and active transportation, is not cheap. Time itself is expensive in construction, as the report itself calls out inflation and design as major contributor of cost increases.

The last objection I heard was the lack of planning, either in general, or with the addition of the second bus lane. That's fair, especially with taxpayer money footing the bill. Folks need to know what they're buying, and it's a good thing to ask for details to confirm it makes sense. Staff (both in session, and on further inquiry) said that in a project this size using functional design, and where the implementation would occur in phases (phase 1 and 2 are in the report), having everything mapped out in advance wasn't practical. In a situation such as this, where the first phase would inform the second and so on, and having to plan for a future plan wasn't a risk.

On balance, I couldn't justify tossing a plan 5 years in the making, with nearly $34,000,000 in jeopardy in federal and provincial dollars. The plan, with the amendment, presented a solid path forward, and I saw no concrete reason to say no. It's a big thing to not take the recommendation from staff, and I saw no reason to here.

Though the motion failed on the first vote, Councillor Hendsbee called for a recision, as Councillors Deagle Gammon, Gillis, and Kent were absent. The motion will be revisited on February 24. I am always looking for solutions, and if another solution presents itself, I'll gladly review it. But I also think this plan has merit, and is solid value for taxpayers. Regardless of where the funding comes from (taxpayers only have one wallet), folks should know that their hard-earned money is well spent. I fundamentally belive this plan is that.