Paving the Railway Cut

[Keith P.]

The province issued this today:

Proposals Sought for Feasibility Study on Integrated Transportation Corridor
Transportation and Infrastructure RenewalOctober 23, 2008 11:35 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A request for proposals is being issued to determine the feasibility of an integrated transportation corridor in Halifax. The corridor would reduce downtown truck traffic and support development of Canada's Atlantic Gateway.

"Making the gateway more competitive, moving trucks off busy downtown streets and expanding public transit options in HRM are the keys to this proposal," said Angus MacIsaac, Minister responsible for the Gateway Initiative. "We want to have the most up-to-date and comprehensive information to help us make the right decision as we aggressively pursue the opportunities presented by the Atlantic Gateway Initiative."

Areas to be addressed in the feasibility study include:
-- the environmental benefits and impacts of diverting traffic from downtown streets to an existing transportation corridor
-- the overall cost of the proposed project, including projected economic impact assessment
-- options to enhance public transit options through use of the corridor
-- possible greenway features, including trails for cyclists and pedestrians.

"From those involved in the fishing industry, to Christmas tree growers, to pulp and paper companies, manufacturing and food production, businesses in this province are increasingly reliant on this transportation network to get their goods to market," said Wes Armour, president and CEO of Armour Transportation Systems. "By strengthening the position of the gateway, we strengthen the market position of our whole province and region."

Businesses and people across the province, region, and country stand to benefit significantly when the Atlantic Gateway grows.

"We want to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to the competitiveness of our ports and gateway infrastructure, and we believe this project will make a significant contribution to that approach," said Mr. MacIsaac.

The deadline for submissions for the request for proposals is Nov. 14. The study is expected to be complete in early 2009. The request for proposals will be available online on Friday, Oct. 24 at www.nscorridor.ca .

--

News reports indicate that it is not going to look into more innovative options like relocating Halterm out of the south end, dropping the rail lines and placing
a roadway on top, etc. Seems like very short term thinking.

[someone123]

What is the point of relocating Halterm? The truck traffic is the only really big negative impact on the downtown and South End area.

[Keith P.]

What is the point of relocating Halterm? The truck traffic is the only really big negative impact on the downtown and South End area.


So, if it wasn't there, you'd just leave all that land as an empty lot? Think of the possibilities, man... ;)

[worldlyhaligonian]

I would like to see the gap bridged everywhere, leaving existing tunnel below for a future metro.

[someone123]

The container terminal itself would probably cost a large amount of money to rebuild elsewhere. There was some talk of a new Richmond terminal but given the fact that the current port could handle 2 million TEUs while traffic is stalled around 500,000, this doesn't seem like it will happen anytime soon.

Something else that I think it underappreciated is that having the terminal where it is contributes to the atmosphere of the city. I like that Halifax still has a real, urban working port. The economic diversity of the peninsula (downtown offices, universities and hospitals, port, military, industries like the breweries) is a huge part of what makes it interesting.

[spaustin]

The study is about using the railcut to move trucks. I don't see anything about relocating Halterm (although I think moving the cargo portion, but leaving the cruise ships would be worth exploring). After all the talk of doing something here the province is going to commission a study. What a waste. HRM has already studied this twice. What more do we need to know?

[MonctonRad]

The railway cut through the south end is not that wide (at least where it parallels the North West Arm). I doubt that you could place any more than a three lane road down there. This roadway would carry very busy truck traffic right through the middle of the priciest residential areas of the city. I can imagine just how happy the deep south ender's would be over that!

If you pave the cut, I presume this means eliminating rail access to Halterm. How do you operate a container port without rail access!

The Halifax container facilities are currently operating severely undercapacity at present. To me, the best solution would be to close Halterm and move all container traffic to Fairview Cove. This would free up oodles of prime shorefront property in the south end for development. Meanwhile, you could keep the rail lines in the existing railway cut and convert them for commuter rail traffic to downtown.

This solution would be practical, cheap and potentially quite lucrative to the city's property tax base.

If at some future time container traffic to the port were to increase again, a second terminal elsewhere in metro could be constructed.

[Jonovision]

I'm pretty sure they want to maintain the rail line through there, but they could easily pave it. Thus allowing both rail and truck traffic to use that part of the cut. I think it is a good idea. I can't imagine the downtown without all those trucks. It would be so nice!

I also like the port where it is. We are after all a port city and taking away Halterm would take a lot away from that fact. If we sell off all industrial waterfront land for commercial and residential uses, what kind of city would we be? We would be wasting our best asset to attract business here. Not too mention that much land being freed up at one time.....it wouldn't work. We would end up with a vacant site for decades. Look at what happened when irving moved out of Dartmouth? It's taken a decade for Kings Wharf to come along and that site is like maybe 3% of the size of Halterm.

[Dmajackson]

I think this article is a little bit more descriptive. And it includes the typical comment from Sue Uteck:

N.S. seeks proposals on city truck route

By JEFFREY SIMPSON Staff Reporter
Fri. Oct 24 - 4:46 AM
The province wants to take another look at adding a trucking route to the rail corridor in peninsular Halifax, Economic Development Minister Angus MacIsaac said Thursday.

Nova Scotia is calling for proposals from firms interested in studying how worthwhile it would be to build a road alongside the 6.8-kilometre stretch of CN rail tracks that snake through the city from the Halterm container port.

"We want to have the most up-to-date and comprehensive information to help us make the right decisions," Mr. MacIsaac said.

Mr. MacIsaac said adding that the road would hopefully improve the transportation of goods to and from the port and make Halifax more competitive for container ship business. It could also reduce heavy truck traffic in downtown Halifax and provide opportunities for public transportation and recreation.

"We want to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to the competitiveness of our ports," Mr. MacIsaac said.

Mr. MacIsaac said the province is confident Ottawa will contribute funding for the project, although there’s no such promise yet.

Transport Canada, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the four provinces agreed last October in Halifax to spend two years hashing out a number of issues for developing an Atlantic Gateway, including potential effects on the region’s transportation system and partnerships with the private sector.

The federal government has set aside $2.1 billion over seven years for gateways and corridor projects.

"Our companies rely on this transportation network to get their goods to market," Mr. MacIsaac said.

"We know that by strengthening the position of the gateway our whole province and region stand to benefit in this competitive and evolving marketplace."

But business at the container terminal has dropped significantly this year.

"We need to ensure that the port of Halifax is very efficient," Mr. MacIsaac said. "We need to do everything we can to allow it to make that claim."

NDP Leader Darrell Dexter questioned whether the cost of the project, which has been estimated at about $80 million, would be the best way to bolster business at the port.

"There’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing here," he said.

"Do you want the traffic first or do you want the infrastructure first to carry that traffic?"

Coun. Sue Uteck (Northwest Arm-South End) said there have been several studies already, including one in 2007 which concluded it wasn’t very feasible.

"You’re raising the ire of a lot of the members of the public."

She said nothing will be possible unless the company is prepared to co-operate on the project because it owns the land, pointing out CN has reduced daily service from two trains to one.

"Nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room, which is CN," she said.

"That has to be addressed before any study."

The deadline for submissions is Nov. 14 and the feasibility study itself is expected to be completed in January.

The study is expected to cost several hundred thousand dollars and examine several factors, including the project’s total cost, possible economic benefits and environmental impacts.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Imagine a nice Bombardier LRT metro that would go from downtown to Bedford. Lol, CN is in the driver's seat for any planned use of the land.

[someone123]

The rail cut sort of made sense for commuter rail done on the cheap ($15-30M, basically just buy some used diesel trains and build minimalist stations), but for a real LRT system it's a very poor route.

[hfx_chris]

I still support the idea of not having any trucks enter downtown at all; build an intermodal terminal somewhere off-peninsula, maybe in the Fall River area, near the 102. When the container ships are unloaded, the containers are all put straight onto rail cars and brought out to the intermodal terminal where they are transferred to trucks to be trucked off, while the rest are transferred to another train and taken to places beyond.

[Dmajackson]

Personally I would love it if they infilled some of the railcut (make it into a tunnel) and put a trail system in its place above ground but since that probably won't happen the truckway might be nice IF it removes the trucks off of downtown streets.

Halifax rail cut should be paved, MacKay says
Project benefits would outweigh residents’ concerns, minister says
By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Thu. Nov 6 - 5:44 AM
Peter MacKay supports paving Halifax’s south-end rail cut for truck traffic, even if it comes at a price for homeowners in the area.

"Well, you know, progress: It comes at a cost," the Central Nova MP told The Chronicle Herald in a recent interview at his Hollis Street office.

Mr. MacKay, in charge of the newly created Atlantic Gateway portfolio, said people who live along the cut have to look at the overall good of the project.

"One of the things I am very sensitive to and cautious about, in everything I say and do around Gateway, is that this is a regional project," he said.

"It’s not Halifax Gateway or Melford or Charlottetown or St. John’s. It’s the Atlantic Gateway and we have to market it that way."

The Atlantic Gateway project focuses on increasing trade among the four Atlantic provinces and Europe and Asia.

It’s essential to improve infrastructure at key ports, on railway lines and on roads, and it’s time to get moving on those projects, Mr. MacKay said.

"We have to seize on the opportunity right now," he said.

Mr. MacKay said funds are urgently needed for developments such as the multimillion-dollar paving of the rail cut to give port container truck traffic a route out of town.

Premier Rodney MacDonald "has identified some of his priorities, including a corridor here in Halifax and highway spending," he said. "There’s money that’s been identified in the budget, and that’s not going to be taken away."

The Pacific Gateway has already received the "lion’s share" of gateway spending, Mr. MacKay said, "and they have their cranes in place . . . so we have to seize on the opportunity right now."

Close to 80 homeowners live along the banks of the railway line from the south-end container port to the Bicentennial Highway.

The councillor who represents the area said people are not having a knee-jerk reaction to the news that truck traffic may soon accompany the sound of trains that run below their windows.

"They’re not saying, ‘Not in my backyard.’ They’re saying, ‘Show us the business case,’ " Coun. Sue Uteck (Northwest Arm-South End) said Wednesday.

Like the constituents she represents at city hall, she wants more research into the economics of the plan.

"You can spend all that money you want to pave that rail cut, but no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room, which is the lack of production at the port of Halifax and the decreased service by CN," Ms. Uteck said.

"I’m not saying no to the possibility and of course there are always going to be unhappy people, but I don’t want to throw taxpayers’ money away without doing (the business case)."

The idea isn’t exactly environmentally friendly either, she said. "Running trucks in one area 24 hours a day is not clean and green."

The province is awaiting a study on an integrated transportation corridor, expected in early 2009. Mayor Peter Kelly said the municipality supports the research and he is eager to see the results.

"I can’t see this project going ahead if there’s not any prescribed benefit," he said. "If there are no benefits, why would we do it?"

[worldlyhaligonian]

Yeah, that is my idea and I am sure all of the south enders would prefer it.

All of the truck traffic noise would be below ground and you could have the urban trail along the grassy upper portion.

[hfx_chris]

Yeah, that's about as likely as Halifax building a subway system :)

I still like the idea of building an inland rail to truck terminal; take the containers from the ships, put them on trains, haul them out to the terminal (maybe somewhere along the 102, maybe near the airport), transfer them to trucks or leave some on trains, and haul them from there.

[Dmajackson]

Nothing new but just to get some more discussion going on this topic:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rail cut study due out soon

By OUR STAFF
Sat. Jan 3 - 5:12 AM

Aside from a lot of snow, January in Nova Scotia brings with it the first government feasibility study of 2009.

It happens to be linked to a controversial proposal to improve the transportation of goods through metro.

The CN rail cut in south-end Halifax is the subject of a $288,765 consultant’s review to determine its suitability as an integrated transportation corridor.

Part of the province’s Atlantic Gateway project, the proposed expansion of the rail cut to accommodate trucks moving cargo to and from the port of Halifax, emergency vehicles and possibly Metro Transit buses, is being studied by an independent transportation engineering firm, McCormick Rankin Corp.

The study, which will look at road safety, neighbourhood impact, greenhouse gas emissions and noise pollution, is to be finished by the end of this month. It’ll also provide a cost-benefit analysis.

David Oxner, director of the province’s gateway initiative, told The Chronicle Herald recently the study will determine whether the rail corridor can handle container truck traffic and routes for transit buses, and even cyclists and pedestrians.

The purpose of the corridor is to divert container trucks heading to and from the busy Halterm terminal away from the downtown core.

Developing the CN rail cut is one of a number of projects Premier Rodney MacDonald wants included in the Atlantic Gateway program. The federal government has set aside more than $2 billion to help fund gateway projects in Canada.

The gateway moved from a loose concept to a real plan last March when Mr. MacDonald released his priority list. Items included dredging the entry channel in Sydney Harbour, expanding the rail cut in Halifax, building a new multi-tenant cargo facility at Halifax Stanfield International Airport and more development in Burnside Park in Dartmouth.

[terrynorthend]

Hmmm. The economic downturn seems to being doing more diverting container trucks heading to and from the "busy" Halterm terminal away from the downtown core than any railcut alternate route. :jester:

[Barrington south]

I live on Hollis st. so any reduction in the big rig traffic outside my front window would be nice...especially at 4:00am...I would be pretty outraged if I lived in the South End though...Also, I don't even see how the cut is wide for two lanes of traffic without talking up the track and thus hampering the the port

[someone123]

They could instead build approaches for a third crossing that would go from around the terminal to Barrington and Robie (though I guess neither street is a whole lot better than Hollis anyway).

The Bedford Highway isn't a great spot for trucks either, and isn't going to get any better in the coming decades.

[Dmajackson]

The Bedford Highway is horrible for trucks especially at Joe Howe and in Bedford itself.

I just hope that if they pave the railcut they connect it to Bayers Road at the Bi-Hi.

[someone123]

That is probably what they'd plan to do and sounds much better, although I also wonder how many cars the 102 is designed to handle and whether or not there are eventual plans to add more lanes.

[Keith P.]

The Bedford Highway is horrible for trucks especially at Joe Howe and in Bedford itself.

I just hope that if they pave the railcut they connect it to Bayers Road at the Bi-Hi.

Of course they won't. It is a half-assed idea that will be implemented in the usual half-assed way that all road projects get done around here. They will probably install a 4-way stop sign at Chebucto Rd and make them get onto the street network at the roundabout.

The more I think about this idea the more irritated I get. It is truly stupid. Halterm needs to go away in any event but for the time being until it does, why would you even consider this? If your objective is to get trucks off downtown streets then utilize the rail cut for what it was designed for and establish a rail shuttle to a site that is not in Burnside (the other idiotic thing about this idea -- why would you put such a facility on the other side of the harbor?). The concept is totally boneheaded.

[Barrington south]

They could instead build approaches for a third crossing

Do we really need a 1.3 billion dollar bridge in to shearwater?...AKA a bridge to no where? is there a lot of people traveling from shearwater to the south end?...and how would cruise ships get under it? that would kill the entire cruise industry....if something had to be built it shout be a tunnel..

[someone123]

The more I think about this idea the more irritated I get. It is truly stupid. Halterm needs to go away in any event but for the time being until it does, why would you even consider this? If your objective is to get trucks off downtown streets then utilize the rail cut for what it was designed for and establish a rail shuttle to a site that is not in Burnside (the other idiotic thing about this idea -- why would you put such a facility on the other side of the harbor?). The concept is totally boneheaded.

Wasn't the rail line to Bayers Lake recently abandoned? It went from Fairview, not the South End, but presumably the two lines could be connected fairly easily.

I don't understand why they think the facility should go in Burnside either. It's one thing if they want to load trucks at the container terminal for direct distribution, but the current proposal seems silly.

As for the third crossing, a tunnel is a possibility, but it seems strange to simply assume that the bridge would not be tall enough for cruise ships when it is still in the design stage. Regular container ships have gotten under the existing bridges with large cranes on top. The bridge would not go to Shearwater, it would connect to the Circumferential, which itself connects to Portland Street. The southern part of Dartmouth and Eastern Passage could both accommodate a lot of new growth. The same thing would be true of the Spryfield area with better access.

This has all gone in another thread but I find it kind of unsettling how every major project in Halifax is met with indignation. The fact is that the city's well along its way to being twice as large as it was when the MacKay went up.

[Dmajackson]

Do we really need a 1.3 billion dollar bridge in to shearwater?...AKA a bridge to no where? is there a lot of people traveling from shearwater to the south end?...and how would cruise ships get under it? that would kill the entire cruise industry....if something had to be built it shout be a tunnel..

While I'm not saying we need a third bridge you do need the infastructure before the demand is shown. Just look at the McDonald Bridge bikeway. When it was built nobody bike between Halifax and Dartmuoth but know its one of our key bicycle infastructures.

IMO ideally what would happen in the Terminal would be moved across the Harobur, a tunnel would be built to connect into the rail cut, the rail cut would be covered over and an underground LRT would be built instead, the tunnel could handle a LRT track and a bus lane. While this won't adress getting more cars across the Harbour it would adress getting more people across which is what is needed. The Peninsula roads cannot handle anymore car traffic so the only solution is to get more people onto public transportation without placing more cars on the roads.

[someone123]

People adapt when the infrastructure is poor, but the city's economy and quality of life suffer relative to what they would be.

Halifax to me seems like a city in heavy denial of its size and growth. Partly the "problem" sort of fixes itself as the city misses the boat on growth opportunities and remains much smaller than it could be, but eventually the 50s and 70s infrastructure is still going to become inadequate. What we'll get at that point is even more sprawl north of the city with a faded core. At that point people might as well just call it a day and pick somewhere else to live.

[Barrington south]

but it seems strange to simply assume that the bridge would not be tall enough for cruise ships when it is still in the design stage.

That concept, the bridge not being tall enough, was something I read the Bridge commission as stating, I didn't just come up with it myself. Perhaps an even taller bridge would cost even more money...it's already into the billions...yet we can't spare 47 mill for a new Library/cultural center. And in reality how long is the weight at the bridge 10 min? big deal...try going to a serious city like LA or London and complaining about a 10 min weight, I think they would find it quiet humours...also how does a city like Sydney Aus survive with only 1 bridge across the main part of the harbour?..ferries!...we are trying to move away from the culture of cars...not bow down to it

[someone123]

The library funding sources are different. The bridge would be mostly use pay and itself would generate economic activity. Development is not a zero sum game where you pick X dollars worth of things to build - the amount of money that the government has to spend on projects depends significantly on how wisely it is spent over the years. Halifax is significantly poorer than it would be if it had completed a couple of major, successful government-funded infrastructure projects (in the same way, the HRM shoots itself in the foot by not investing in the profitable downtown core etc.).

The "10 minutes" argument does not hold water. First of all, part of the appeal of a smaller city like Halifax is that it is easier to get around in. Halifax does not have the opportunities of LA or London. A small city with big city drawbacks is pretty much worthless.

On top of this, there are about 100,000 vehicle trips over the bridges every day so we're not talking about 10 minutes, we're talking about a million minutes or about 700 days of wasted time plus associated fuel costs (dollars and emissions). If somebody were to spend 700 days working at minimum wage they'd be paid over $100,000. Add all of this up over a year and we're talking $40-50 million in waste.

This is what I'm talking about when I say that people in Halifax are in denial about the size of the city and the implications of its problems. The opportunity costs themselves are in the billions.

[hfx_chris]

If your objective is to get trucks off downtown streets then utilize the rail cut for what it was designed for and establish a rail shuttle to a site that is not in Burnside
Absolutely agree 100%. But CN doesn't seem particularly keen on infrastructure improvements within Halifax.

Do we really need a 1.3 billion dollar bridge in to shearwater?...AKA a bridge to no where? is there a lot of people traveling from shearwater to the south end?...and how would cruise ships get under it? that would kill the entire cruise industry....if something had to be built it shout be a tunnel..
What does Shearwater have to do with anything? Are you not aware of the existence of the circumferential highway and the amount of people it could carry?

Wasn't the rail line to Bayers Lake recently abandoned? It went from Fairview, not the South End, but presumably the two lines could be connected fairly easily.
The problem there is that you need to cross Joe Howe, and the section of that rail spur that goes from Fairview to Bayers Lake travels directly through peoples' backyards. Not separated by a few hundred feet and a different grade level like it is through the rail cut, I mean really in peoples' backyards. Imagine the complaints then...

...the rail cut would be covered over
What is it with covering the rail cut? I keep hearing this mentioned, it seems such an unnecessary cost...

[miesh111]

The rail cut seems usable in most areas:

1) it starts from under the Windsor Street Exchange, behind the Fairview Cemetary, and on the other side, A couple office buildings, a Superstore.

2)Then it passes the two tall yellow brick buildings, cuts under Bayers Road, and through the West End and cuts under Mumford. All homes in this area are far away from the cut and it seems it would work to here as well.

3) It then curves towards the South, behind the West End Mall and the first major roadblock to any kind of alternative use: The bridge / rail overpass over Chebucto. They just did work on Chebucto and the nutz there made a scene about widening the street, imagine the uproar when a major transit / trucking / (some say possibly even alternating one way fast lane into the downtown) is placed in their yards as well? How do you deal with this, do you build a better bridge here? Even so, it is narrower than the rest of the cut and passes pretty close to a NS Power substation.

4) I'm sure they could work somthing out for the above, but then you continue along, and the cut as it is called, passes by at the same level as the 4 - 6 apartment buildings and 10 - 15 houses on Qunipool Road. Basically in their backyards.

5) Continues south, crossing under Quinpool, Prince Arthur, Juibilee, and the south end properties (belmont etc). In all these, it is at a substantially lower elevation then the residences in the area.

6) It begins to curve east and gets further away from most homes after the Winwick Bridge, but now it goes by homes of some of Halifax's Wealthiest, Ken Rowe, The Regan Family, etc.

7) Turns fully west now, gets very wide, goes under Tower and Young Ave., and then boom, you're at the terminal.

I think that it could work, provided the fat cats in the south end don't get angry about it in their yards, and the the overpass on Chebucto can be addressed.

There needs to be a non interfering connection to Bayers Road (102) however, that ideally, seems to fit best right where the Petro Canada is right now for outbound trucks. It looks as if there would be enough land for the inbound trucks to exit off of the 102 onto the cut.

I'd also like to see this connected to the Fairview teminal, if you're going this far, get the trucks off of Joe Howe and the Windsor Street Exchange as well.

That's my breakdown of the cut for those that don't know where it goes around the city. You can see it clearly on Microsoft Live Maps.

[Keith P.]

The rail cut seems usable in most areas:
There needs to be a non interfering connection to Bayers Road (102) however, that ideally, seems to fit best right where the Petro Canada is right now for outbound trucks. It looks as if there would be enough land for the inbound trucks to exit off of the 102 onto the cut.

I'd also like to see this connected to the Fairview teminal, if you're going this far, get the trucks off of Joe Howe and the Windsor Street Exchange as well.


The main objective with the proposal is to allow trucks to get containers to a transfer facility in Burnside. While there is undoubtedly some demand for them to get to destinations off the 102 as well, if you are heading to Bedford and beyond you already have rail service there so it seems that a properly run local rail service would do the trick.

To get trucks onto the MacKay bridge more effectively I can see only 2 options, neither of which appears very practical:

1. Take them out of the cut at your Bayers Rd connection; however, that puts them onto Joe Howe (don't forget there are residents there too) and the single elevated ramp to the Windsor St exchange, which is already well over capacity and works ridiculously poorly in that direction.

2. Somehow connect it at the Bedford overpass. It still dumps them onto the Exchange with all the attendant problems and you would need to reconstruct that entirely to try and make it work.

I continue to maintain that the entire idea is ridiculous because of the predetermined Burnside location of the cargo facility. Put it somewhere on this side of the harbour and use the existing rail lines. If CN doesn't want to create a new local service then someone else can.

[Barrington south]

The railway cut through the south end is not that wide (at least where it parallels the North West Arm). I doubt that you could place any more than a three lane road down there. This roadway would carry very busy truck traffic right through the middle of the priciest residential areas of the city. I can imagine just how happy the deep south ender's would be over that!

If you pave the cut, I presume this means eliminating rail access to Halterm. How do you operate a container port without rail access!

The Halifax container facilities are currently operating severely under capacity at present. To me, the best solution would be to close Halterm and move all container traffic to Fairview Cove. This would free up oodles of prime shorefront property in the south end for development. Meanwhile, you could keep the rail lines in the existing railway cut and convert them for commuter rail traffic to downtown.

This solution would be practical, cheap and potentially quite lucrative to the city's property tax base.

If at some future time container traffic to the port were to increase again, a second terminal elsewhere in metro could be constructed.

...well said...this reminds me a bit of Sydney Aus....they have an amazing harbour that used to have industrial usage...do they still degrade prime real estate with industry?....no, they moved all that to Botany Bay, a place where it is much more efficient and more logical. Now people flock to Sydney Harbor and marvel at it, while we are left with a harbour that has a container terminal in one of it's most prime locations. Plus it is barley surviving.Perhaps it is those pesky people from Ontario that cursed us with this urban planning embarassment...although I guess to some it is aesthetically pleasing :jester:

[miesh111]

I think we could squeeze a two lane, one way at peak times, highway in there connecting to the 102 and Bedford Highway, thereby getting a lot of traffic off of the surface streets.

Then on the Bedford Highway, build a concrete curb between the two outbound lanes leading up to Bayview, the left lane is for turning as always, and the right lane is for going straight throught to Bedford. The concrete barrier starts about 20 meters back from the intersection, goes through it, and continues through the intersection. All outbound traffic avoids the light and will flow through. If they can do this at the Flamingo and Kearney Lake Lights somehow as well, the entire Fairview Overpass / Windsor Street Exchange would barely slow down at outbound rush hour.

[Dmajackson]

I think we could squeeze a two lane, one way at peak times, highway in there connecting to the 102 and Bedford Highway, thereby getting a lot of traffic off of the surface streets.

Then on the Bedford Highway, build a concrete curb between the two outbound lanes leading up to Bayview, the left lane is for turning as always, and the right lane is for going straight throught to Bedford. The concrete barrier starts about 20 meters back from the intersection, goes through it, and continues through the intersection. All outbound traffic avoids the light and will flow through. If they can do this at the Flamingo and Kearney Lake Lights somehow as well, the entire Fairview Overpass / Windsor Street Exchange would barely slow down at outbound rush hour.

The problem with your idea "meish111" is there's a sidewalk, crosswalk and bus stop at the intersection. Since I can say from riding the 80 frequently during rush hours before that the bus stop is heavily used so the only way to have your idea work would be to move the stop to the top of the hill and install a flashing crosswalk.

Personally I'd prefer to have a bus queue jump lane installed connecting directly with the bus stop. While it won't move the traffic on the road already if jump lanes were installed more people would use the bus therefore leaving more space for trucks.

the situation is similar at Kearney Lake and Flamingo as well. There's sidewalks and bus stops at almost every intersection on the Bedford Highway. The only intersection that the concrete idea could work at is Southgate but seeing that a new road is going to be built across the rail tracks there its pointless.

[Dmajackson]

For anyone interested;

Rail cut info session tonight
Wed. Jan 14 - 4:46 AM

A proposal to expand CN’s rail cut in Halifax to accommodate trucks and possibly transit buses will be the subject of a public meeting tonight at 7 p.m. at Saint Mary’s University.

The local MLA, New Democrat Leonard Preyra, is to host the 90-minute information session in Room 165 of the Sobey Building at Saint Mary’s.

The CN rail cut through parts of Halifax is the subject of a $288,765 consultant’s review to determine its suitability as an integrated transportation corridor.

An independent transportation engineering firm is studying the proposed expansion of the rail cut, part of the province’s Atlantic Gateway strategy, to accommodate trucks moving cargo to and from the Port of Halifax, emergency vehicles and possibly Metro Transit buses.

[hfx_chris]

Ideally it would be returned to rail usage.

[sdm]

Residents voice off against widening plan
Wisdom of paving rail cut challenged
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE Staff Reporter
Thu. Jan 15 - 4:46 AM


More than 250 people packed a lecture room at Saint Mary’s to discuss the province’s plans to pave the CN rail cut that runs through to Halterm. (Eric Wynne / Staff)





The wisdom of the proposed widening of the CN rail cut in Halifax was repeatedly challenged at a packed public meeting Wednesday night.

Residents potentially affected by the proposal are worried the controversial project, which is the subject of a $288,765 feasibility study to determine the rail cut’s suitability as an integrated transportation corridor, will hurt their neighbourhoods and not provide a sustainable plan for shipping port-related goods and people through Halifax.

Dozens of people showed up for the meeting at Saint Mary’s University. Many were sitting on the floor, leaning against aisle walls or standing in doorways. Attendees heard speakers question the government plan to pave the rail cut, which snakes through peninsular Halifax.

Part of the feasibility study will be a cost-benefit analysis. Preliminary estimates peg the cost of the proposed changes to the rail corridor, part of the province’s Atlantic Gateway project, at $80 million.

"We should be against doing anything that has not been thoroughly reviewed," said Andrea Brinton of Communities and Residents for Sustainable Transportation. "We should be for development that makes sense, and then invest wisely."

Ms. Brinton said her group recognizes the importance of the Port of Halifax. But she said taxpayers’ dollars shouldn’t be dished out on something that might prove not to be viable.

"We recognize . . . that funding is available federally," she said. "Let’s use these funds wisely."

The proposed expansion of the rail cut to accommodate trucks moving cargo to and from the Port of Halifax, emergency vehicles and possibly Metro Transit buses is being studied by an independent transportation engineering firm, McCormick Rankin Corp. of Mississauga, Ont.

One speaker at Saint Mary’s told the crowd he’s a retired CN executive and he examined the rail cut expansion issue in 1993.

"First of all, there’s a huge liability issue," he said. "There’s a huge problem with (keeping) the corridors clear" in the event of a major accident.

He also said it would be counterproductive for CN to share its property with "their biggest competitor, which is the trucking industry."

Perhaps residents and other concerned citizens should sit down with CN officials to address the rail cut proposal, he said.

New Democrat Leonard Preyra, the MLA for Halifax Citadel, hosted the public meeting and said alternatives to the rail cut plan must be considered. He acknowledged the port is the lifeblood of the local economy but said a sound business case for the integrated transportation scheme hasn’t been presented.

Mr. Preyra also commented about residents’ concerns that the project might be a fait accompli.

"I don’t think a (government) decision has been made," he said.

( mlightstone@herald.ca)

[Dmajackson]

Sue's back at it!. If you want some comic relief I suggest reading the comments from the article HERE. (http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1105872.html)

Uteck: Rail cut a few costly bridges too far

By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Wed. Feb 11 - 2:08 PM
The province might have a fight brewing on its hands over the Atlantic Gateway project.

Coun. Sue Uteck (Northwest Arm-South End) says Halifax city hall hasn’t signed off on the project, which would include the conversion of part of the CN railway cut to accommodate trucks travelling from the Port of Halifax to Highway 102.

The route would speed up the delivery of container freight from the port to the highway by getting truck traffic off clogged inner-city streets.

But Ms. Uteck says the city could be on the hook for millions of dollars if the plan goes ahead.

That’s because the city would be responsible for widening the 12 bridges spanning the tracks that lead from the port to the Highway 102 on-ramps.

"And that’s not in our budget," she said outside council chambers Tuesday night.

During the council meeting, Ms. Uteck received her colleagues’ full support to schedule a presentation on an alternative to the rail cut plan.

That option would involve putting the freight on railcars at the Port of Halifax and transporting it to an inland facility where it could be transferred to trucks.

"If it’s much more economically feasible to move freight in and around the city (by train), then I can imagine that council will say, ‘We’re not going to participate (in the paved rail cut plan),’ " Ms. Uteck said.

MariNova Consulting Ltd. had prepared a study on the so-called Atlantic Gateway Distripark inland facility for the consideration of regional council and the province. But the study’s findings have never been revealed, she said in the interview

"MariNova got cut off at the knees . . . and we’ve suddenly gone from abandoning the Distripark study to the inland rail corridor. And that has serious cost implications to HRM."

Given the rumoured $270-million cost to convert the rail corridor, she said it’s important to open up the study.

"I think even the premier’s surprised at the cost so far.

"There’s only $330 million (in federal money) to go around (for the Atlantic Gateway) initiative. And this one single project will suck all the money from Atlantic Canada. Is this really the best bang for the buck?"

Cabinet is set to meet about the Atlantic Gateway on Friday, she said.

"And I think the best defence is a good offence, so I’d like council to see that study for our benefit so we have the options where we want to participate."

Atlantic Gateway projects are intended to make Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada the gateway to North America for trade coming through the Suez Canal from India and other parts of Asia.

[sdm]

Got to admit, i think Uteck is bang on here.

[Barrington south]

Got to admit, i think Uteck is bang on here.

I second that SDM....and 270 mil...:haha: .....guess that puts the brakes on all the pie eyed enthusiasim for a major transpotation corrador and also makes the bridge idea even less likley to happen :tup:

[hfx_chris]

Got to admit, i think Uteck is bang on here.

Absolutely. Rail, rail, rail. I keep railing about this, but I can't rail on about rail enough! CN tearing up the second set of tracks through the cut was a bad decision, especially now when we need to use rail for freight more than ever! An intermodal terminal needs to be built somewhere near the 102, between Fall River and the airport, where the freight can be transferred from train to truck. It makes so much more sense than this half-assed dangerous idea to pave half of the cut and allow trucks to operate adjacent to trains, that's an accident waiting to happen. CN recognizes that. I've been against this since the first mentions, it just makes no sense what so ever. We have the rail infrastructure in place, let's use it!

[spaustin]

I'm with Uteck on this one. Paving the cut is a stunned solution that only relocates the problem to someone else's neighbourhood. I live at Hollis/Morris and I would be happy to not have trucks rumbling through my neighbourhood, especially at night, but I wouldn't want them out of my neighbourhood only to screw someone else. A inland terminal would be a great idea. In the long term you really have to ask is this the best place for the port? Maybe it belongs over on the Dartmouth side where there is good access to highways and rail. The relocation would cost billions but the phased redevelopment of the port's valuable land would also net a lot.

[Keith P.]

In the long term you really have to ask is this the best place for the port? Maybe it belongs over on the Dartmouth side where there is good access to highways and rail. The relocation would cost billions but the phased redevelopment of the port's valuable land would also net a lot.

The cost obviously depends on the site and the design/features, but the bottom line is that Halterm needs to go. With the continued decline in volumes and the emergence of Melford, it is rapidly becoming redundant anyway.

[hfx_chris]

Well, if Halterm was to be phased out, paving the rail cut would be an expensive exercise in futility. An inland intermodal terminal wouldn't require near the investment, and the terminal itself would be useful for Fairview as well.

[Spitfire75]

Good. I never liked the idea of paving it in the first place. I'm glad they're actually considering using the tracks for what they're made for.

[spaustin]

Today's Herald has a good editorial on this one



Halifax rail cut: Do Gateway a smart way


Fri. Feb 13 - 5:57 AM
THERE’S no question the Halifax peninsula rail cut – running from Fairview to the Halterm container terminal – is an underused transportation corridor in a city that could certainly use some faster, cleaner and greener transportation links to the downtown and the port.

But it’s hard to fathom why the provincial government is stuck on only one way of using the rail corridor – to put a truck and bus expressway alongside the existing rail line – to improve Halifax’s position as an Atlantic Gateway for trade and business.

Only three years ago, a thorough study for the city and the port authority by MariNova Consulting found a rail-cut "truckway" was not the best way to address truck congestion in the city, reduce greenhouse gases or improve the efficiency of the port.

"By far the best option," it said, was to build an inland terminal adjacent to the Rocky Lake quarry, near Bedford. The rail cut would be used to rail-shuttle containers directly from ships to the inland terminal to make connections with trains or trucks.

MariNova envisaged a minimum $40-million price, plus the cost of a new rail bridge at Chebucto Road, for the truckway. This would widen the cut for a one-lane truck road, with a safe separation from the rail line. The single lane would be reversible, alternating between inbound-only and outbound-only, with traffic waiting at holding areas at each end. About half the port’s truck traffic was expected to use the road, less if truckers found the wait inconvenient.

MariNova said the cost of a two-lane road beside the track would be "much higher" since this would mean replacing 14 bridges and nearly doubling the width of the cut (from 38 feet to 77 feet) for about half its length. The study concluded even a $40-million price "cannot be justified" by the small savings for truckers, a mere $140,000 a year.

Media reports now say $40 million wouldn’t begin to cover the tab. CTV News says a draft report for cabinet puts the bill between $205 million and $270 million. That sticker shock prompted Halifax Councillor Sue Uteck to urge city council to take another look at the inland terminal study before being stuck with a huge bill for bridges. Wisely, councillors agreed.

The province, too, should be looking at the rail-shuttle and inland-terminal version of the Atlantic Gateway. Unlike the truckway, the inland terminal actually provides for future growth of the port by increasing its container-handling capacity.

And where a truckway merely moves some truck noise and pollution from downtown streets to residential neighbourhoods, the inland terminal removes trucks from the whole peninsula by shuttling containers on railcars. That’s fairer to residents and good for the environment, too.

MariNova concluded the inland terminal was "the best option for removing trucks from city streets, reducing GHGs and adding port capacity." This sounds like the smart way to create a Gateway to growth. Why isn’t the province considering it?

[someone123]

It does seem like a very strange plan. Originally I thought they were going to go with an inland processing facility somewhere along the rail line.

Is all of this happening for corrupt political reasons? Why do containers need to be processed in Burnside? Putting them immediately on trucks saves a little time but isn't the truck traffic more regional and less time-sensitive to begin with?

Why is another container terminal being built in the province when Halterm is so far below capacity?

It is also very strange that they tore up the second rail track. Why would you go to that expense when it can just sit there? Again, it seems a little sketchy. Halifax container traffic has been stagnant, but Montreal traffic has been growing. Coincidentally, a single Montreal-based rail company has a monopoly on rail service in the Halifax area (which uses rail lines that originally were bought and paid for by NS and NB taxpayers, long ago).

At the very least it's hard for me to imagine that the city's port is being well-managed overall given the circumstances.

[hfx_chris]

To what Montreal-based company are you referring?

[someone123]

To what Montreal-based company are you referring?

CN

[hfx_chris]

Just making sure

[terrynorthend]

It is also very strange that they tore up the second rail track. Why would you go to that expense when it can just sit there?

I wondered that too when they did it. Perhaps those rails (physical steel) are worth more as material than just sitting there.

[MonctonRad]

I wondered that too when they did it. Perhaps those rails (physical steel) are worth more as material than just sitting there.


They tore up the second set of tracks running through Moncton as well. The reason given for doing this was that there was not enough traffic to justify double-tracking through the city.

Apparently, they couldn't just leave the second set of tracks in place hoping for a return of business. If the tracks were there, they were legally obligated by Transport Canada regulations to maintain them. It was simply cheaper for them to tear them up!

Pretty stupid eh.

At least they are still keeping the right of way.

[Dmajackson]

Apparently East Hants (Municipality) has picked up one the idea of an inland terminal;

East Hants talks inland port
Council explores plan for transferring station in Milford Station as part of Atlantic Gateway
By CATHY VON KINTZEL Truro Bureau
Fri. Feb 27 - 4:46 AM
East Hants is positioning itself to be Nova Scotia’s rail and road transportation hub for the Atlantic Gateway.

With a consultant’s study in hand, East Hants municipal councillors agreed this week to explore the idea of creating what they call an inland port for the Port of Halifax along Highway No. 2 in Milford Station.

"I can’t say whether there’ll ever be a need for such a port, but we want to be sure we’re prepared to move forward," Warden John Patterson said in a telephone interview Thursday. "We want to provide a location if this type of facility goes ahead and if people in the area (accept) the concept."

Atlantic Gateway projects would provide improvements to transportation routes and ports across Nova Scotia.

The municipality hired a consultant to prepare a report on ways it could benefit from the Atlantic Gateway.

The report concluded there was opportunity to begin planning an intermodal logistics centre, or inland port, where goods could be transferred from one form of transportation to another; for example, from rail to truck or vice-versa.

The report will soon be posted on the municipality’s website and a public meeting will be held in March, although the date hasn’t been set.

East Hants chief administrative officer Ian Glasgow sees the concept as a rare opportunity that should be explored.

"These types of facilities, and the manufacturing and distribution centres that locate around them, can mean new jobs as well as significant new tax dollars for the municipality," he said in a news release. "That would make a big difference in terms of the services that we could provide to our residents."

Municipal councillors, including Milford’s representative, Willy Versteeg, hope people will think the concept is sound. At the very least, he’s urging them to get familiar with the idea and share their opinions.

"I think the community’s going to be very curious about the project," Mr. Versteeg said in an interview.

"East Hants has what it takes to make this work. We’ve got absolutely fantastic transportation links to air, rail, sea and highway."

Such a port could be located on land along Highway 2, which runs parallel to Highway 102 between Halifax and Truro. The property has access to a CN rail line and is roughly a 20-minute drive to Halifax Stanfield International Airport.

The Colchester Regional Development Agency is also exploring the potential of an inland terminal in Debert, close to where highways 102 and 104 intersect and with access to air and rail.

That potential is one small part of a regional transportation master plan that the development agency recently commissioned in connection to the Atlantic Gateway.

[worldlyhaligonian]

This is good news... it is amazing how this forum produces some of the most innovative ideas going.

[Dmajackson]

All I can say is thank-god. Now maybe they'll consider the inland port idea. :)

Integrated Transportation Corridor Not Feasible
Transportation and Infrastructure RenewalMarch 4, 2009 9:43 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposal to develop an integrated transportation corridor in Halifax will not move forward.

A report examining the feasibility of developing a roadway into the CN rail corridor to consolidate truck and rail shipping says costs are too high from a Gateway perspective. The report estimated the project would cost more than $220 million.

"Using the existing corridor for commercial vehicles and public transit has been studied at a high level, but this was the first detailed study that looked at all aspects and provided a full costing of the project," said Brooke Taylor, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal on behalf of Angus MacIsaac, Minister responsible for the Atlantic Gateway. "This report gave us the valuable information needed to make the right decision about this proposal.

"We will continue to identify opportunities to improve the competitiveness of our province's assets with Nova Scotia's Gateway partners."

The integrated transportation corridor was one of several projects identified for consideration under Nova Scotia's Gateway initiative. The goal of the initiative is to maximize strategic use of Nova Scotia's transportation infrastructure to move goods and visitors through the province.

"I want to thank the many partners and citizens who took the time to give their input and ideas during the study," said Mr. Taylor. "We appreciate all of the ideas put forward and encourage all stakeholders to continue their interest and work to improve our shared transportation system."

The final report can be viewed online at www.nscorridor.ca .

A number of projects have begun to support Nova Scotia's Gateway initiative, including pre-dredging activities in Sydney Harbour, planning the Burnside Expressway, twinning Highway 104, building a multi-user air cargo facility at Halifax Stanfield International Airport, educational programming led by Dalhousie University and various partnerships with the private sector.

Nova Scotia is also an integral partner in the Atlantic Gateway, a regionally based partnership among the four Atlantic provinces, Transport Canada and Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency that will deliver a regional strategy to guide Gateway activity by October.

[spaustin]

Great news! The railcut idea was half-baked from the start and the city could have told them as much since they studied it in the past. Hopefully that'll put this away for good.

[Haliguy]

This is really to bad. This is a great asset the city has and should be taken advantage of to make our port more competative . I'm not sure why they jusy can't pave one lane to get trucks in and out instead it has to be bid multilane project.

[hfx_chris]

I agree it is an asset and should be taken advantage of, but for rail, not trucks. It's not called the rail cut for nothing.

[Spitfire75]

The final report at www.nscorridor.ca is a good read, but I'm glad they scraped this project.
I think we should wait and put this corridor towards a better use (LRT?) in the future. It's not too often you get a rail corridor from the south end to Bedford (easily expandable to Burnside and "downtown" Sackville), let's not mess it up.

[Barrington south]

This is really to bad. This is a great asset the city has and should be taken advantage of to make our port more competative . I'm not sure why they jusy can't pave one lane to get trucks in and out instead it has to be bid multilane project.

in what way would trucks using the rail cut make the port more competitive?...it would relocate the semi's from Hollis and Lower Water...yes...but if you want to make the port more efficient...competative...an in land terminal is ideal, than the big rigs avoid the city altogether....and Hey, the rails are already there!!

[Haliguy]

in what way would trucks using the rail cut make the port more competitive?...it would relocate the semi's from Hollis and Lower Water...yes...but if you want to make the port more efficient...competative...an in land terminal is ideal, than the big rigs avoid the city altogether....and Hey, the rails are already there!!

An inland terminal would make the port less competitive the cost and time of transport would go up. Doen't make it to appealing for business.

[Barrington south]

so how exactly would a single lane make the port more effective?!!. If you have a single lane that means vehicles can only travel in one direction at a time...therefore you are going to always have transports waiting for the road to clear, and since trucks are coming and going all day...it's not like they all go to the port in the morning and all leave at night...that means there will be a lot of truckers waiting around....this is less effective and therefore less competitive than the current model. :koko:

[Dmajackson]

Truckers group, port shrug off rail cut news, say they’ll survive

By TOM PETERS Business Reporter
Thu. Mar 5 - 5:21 AM
The province’s decision not to go forward with expansion of the CN railway cut in Halifax to accommodate trucks from Halterm container terminal should not affect the port’s competitiveness, says the director of the provincial Gateway initiative.

"The port has been competitive and will continue to be competitive into the future," David Oxner said Wednesday. "The port continually has to look at ways to improve efficiencies and decrease costs. This was just one aspect of that. So I think the port and its partners will have to continue doing that work."

Transportation Minister Brooke Taylor said Wednesday the cost of developing an integrated transportation corridor along the railway cut from Halterm to Fairview in the west end was too high.

An in-depth analysis and study projected costs of more than $220 million. The idea of the expanded corridor was one of several projects on Premier MacDonald’s list of provincial Gateway projects that he hoped would be undertaken.

Based on previous cost studies, it was estimated the cost to develop the corridor would be around $100 million or less. The $220 million-plus price tag caught people by surprise.

Mr. Oxner said this new study shows that the original number ($80 million) developed a few years ago was really a preliminary number "and when they started to dig down deep, the numbers really grew into the $200 million-plus range."

"This study was all encompassing and very detailed."

If the province had decided to pursue the project, it may have been eligible for up to 50 per cent funding under the federal Gateway funding program.

Peter Nelson, executive-director of the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association, said the project made sense if it was going to get truck traffic out of the downtown area.

But he said Wednesday the trucking industry can live with the fact it is not going to happen.

"The logistics look too great in terms of what had to be done in terms of the construction and engineering side. It was a mammoth project to undertake at this time, so we can certainly understand why the province might not want to go forward with it.

If the province feels the railway cut is not an option, "then we would be more than willing to work with them to look at other options," Mr. Nelson said.

The Halifax Port Authority said the concept was certainly worth studying as "other jurisdictions have similar corridors that help make transportation to and from ports efficient," authority spokeswoman Michele Peveril said in an email.

The port "will continue working with government and the port community to evaluate other ideas to ensure our port’s competiveness and improve the efficiency of our transportation system," she said.

CN, which hasn’t been overly vocal about the whole idea since it was first brought to the public’s attention, was cordial in its comment on the province’s decision.

"CN is respectful of the government’s decision and will continue to work closely with the local government and industry to promote the Atlantic Gateway," CN spokeswoman Julie Senecal said.

Mr. Oxner said there could be other options available to ease downtown truck traffic and it’s something he hopes to discuss with Halifax Regional Municipality.

"We were pretty focused on this piece of work initially, so now I think we will sit down with the city and other partners to see what other alternatives there are. That is the next step."

[Haliguy]

so how exactly would a single lane make the port more effective?!!. If you have a single lane that means vehicles can only travel in one direction at a time...therefore you are going to always have transports waiting for the road to clear, and since trucks are coming and going all day...it's not like they all go to the port in the morning and all leave at night...that means there will be a lot of truckers waiting around....this is less effective and therefore less competitive than the current model. :koko:


I would try and expalin it to you but why bother if you can't figure it out for yourself theres really is no point. It not hard to figure out really if you know anything about this type of thing :rolleyes:

[hfx_chris]

I would try and expalin it to you but why bother if you can't figure it out for yourself theres really is no point. It not hard to figure out really if you know anything about this type of thing :rolleyes:

What is there to figure out? It's simple physics, two solid objects (transport trucks) cannot pass through each other, thus one must wait until the other is out of the way before it can proceed. It would only take a couple of head-on collisions before that lesson was learned.

[Haliguy]

What is there to figure out? It's simple physics, two solid objects (transport trucks) cannot pass through each other, thus one must wait until the other is out of the way before it can proceed. It would only take a couple of head-on collisions before that lesson was learned.

Thats not what I'm talking about I was talking about competitiveness....geeeach something you guys can't seem to comprehend.

[Barrington south]

By TOM PETERS Business Reporter
Thu. Mar 5 - 5:21 AM
The province’s decision not to go forward with expansion of the CN railway cut in Halifax to accommodate trucks from Halterm container terminal should not affect the port’s competitiveness, says the director of the provincial Gateway initiative.
"

"SHOULD NOT EFFECT THE PORT'S COMPETITIVENESS"...and there talking about a rail cut expansion-multi lane corridor....when you take into account your one lane road's inherent flaw...one way traffic at a time...it would even less efficient and there fore EVEN LESS competitive...

[Barrington south]

I think we should wait and put this corridor towards a better use (LRT?) in the future. It's not too often you get a rail corridor from the south end to Bedford (easily expandable to Burnside and "downtown" Sackville), let's not mess it up.

the moreI thnk about this idea, the more i'm starting to warm up to it

[Barrington south]

Ideally it would be returned to rail usage.

yes, I agree

[Haliguy]

"SHOULD NOT EFFECT THE PORT'S COMPETITIVENESS"...and there talking about a rail cut expansion-multi lane corridor....when you take into account your one lane road's inherent flaw...one way traffic at a time...it would even less efficient and there fore EVEN LESS competitive...

How do you figure...with an inland port you have unload the container off the truck which will then sit there and then it will have to be loaded on a train then wait for the train to fill up and then it will be transported by train to the port loaded off the train sit there and wait for it to be loaded on a ship. All this takes time and not only that puts the costs way up... yeah really competitive. Give your head a shake man and do not put your words in captital letters in just rude...

[Barrington south]

"SHOULD NOT EFFECT THE PORT'S COMPETITIVENESS"...and there talking about a rail cut expansion-multi lane corridor....when you take into account your one lane road's inherent flaw...one way traffic at a time...it would even less efficient and there fore EVEN LESS competitive...

EVEN LESS COMPETITIVE THAN THE CURRANT MODEL!!! ....do you have a hard time following a conversation sunshine?....ohhh and don't tell me not to write in capitals....I'll do what I like

[Barrington south]

a one way road is a hair brain idea...:haha:

[hfx_chris]

I agree, and to think people actually thought paving the rail cut was a good idea...

Also, don't be an asshole okay? It's not particularly becoming...

[Barrington south]

yeah, sorry for being an A**hole....sorry Hailguy...guess I got a little worked up

[Haliguy]

EVEN LESS COMPETITIVE THAN THE CURRANT MODEL!!! ....do you have a hard time following a conversation sunshine?....ohhh and don't tell me not to write in capitals....I'll do what I like


Did I say that?. ..no ... it is less competitive than paving the rail cut and would not make much of difference than the current model in competiveness yes. The only benefit of it is that it will get the trucks off the downtown streets which is a bonus but as far as making the port more competitive with an inland port not really there sunshine... why don't you clam down and actually discuss it instead of yelling with your opinionated rants.

[Barrington south]

I said I was sorry, I won't yell in the future...but I'm not sorry for stating my opinion....much like you do...

[Empire]

I don't know why HRM isn't all over a developing an LRT. They could do a pilot project buy buying or renting one double stacked GO TRAIN car from TTC. Maybe a bus could be fitted with retractable wheels like the maintenance vehicles that CN use. A line could run from Mt. Uniacke to the Westin. Tracks could be installed in Hollis St. and run to Purdy's. Park & Rides could provide space for commuters from Sackville, Bedford and Hammonds Plains. A line could go to Downtown Dartmouth. One could take the ferry from downtown Halifax transfer to an H-Train and go all the way to Mt. Uniacke if a train wasn't available on Hollis St.

[hfx_chris]

Indeed.

I can tell you one thing though, a normal transit bus is not structurally safe enough to ever be allowed to operate on CN tracks along side other trains.
There are systems however, guided busways in use in some parts of the world, basically a normal bus with guide wheels and tracks - not steel rail tracks. Check out the O-Bahn Busway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-Bahn_Busway) in Adelaide, Australia.
Probably not practical for Halifax.. but interesting none the less. Would allow the buses to run on regular city streets downtown, but have its own private ROW off of the peninsula.

[something_witty]

I don't know why HRM isn't all over a developing an LRT. They could do a pilot project buy buying or renting one double stacked GO TRAIN car from TTC. Maybe a bus could be fitted with retractable wheels like the maintenance vehicles that CN use. A line could run from Mt. Uniacke to the Westin. Tracks could be installed in Hollis St. and run to Purdy's. Park & Rides could provide space for commuters from Sackville, Bedford and Hammonds Plains. A line could go to Downtown Dartmouth. One could take the ferry from downtown Halifax transfer to an H-Train and go all the way to Mt. Uniacke if a train wasn't available on Hollis St.

Just to note, GO TRAINS would not be considered LRT. These run on standard guage lines, are are large capacity commuter trains. Something more like the Bombardier trains they use in Ottawa would be more in line. Also, lets face it, we probably won't be seeing LRT in our lifetimes...

[hfx_chris]

For what it's worth, Ottawa's O-train uses standard gauge as well. I think the only reason they are allowed to operate the structurally inferior O-train on the same tracks as freight trains, is because CN doesn't use it during the day, only at night when the O-train isn't running.

[haligonia]

Something else that I think it underappreciated is that having the terminal where it is contributes to the atmosphere of the city. I like that Halifax still has a real, urban working port. The economic diversity of the peninsula (downtown offices, universities and hospitals, port, military, industries like the breweries) is a huge part of what makes it interesting.

Yep, those grain elevators are very interesting:haha:

[miesh111]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Anderson_Memorial_Tunnel

Has anybody ever heard of the Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel? A lot of you are saying that a 'one way tunnel is stupid' etc. but this tunnel won several awards and seems to work very well.

Truck drivers would know the schedule and would plan their loads accordingly, much like they do with ferry crossings. This also opens the lane for direct busses, which would get the 30-series and MetroLink busses off of the main roads.

This NEEDS to happen, and WE need to make it work. It's simple.

[rkannegi]

The Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel is exactly the kind of roadway I had proposed on the Halifax Metro Ring Road thread (and to the Province of Nova Scotia). Double the tracks, pave the land space around the rails, run the trains on a "right-side drive" scheme and let the trucks on. To minimize costs, access would need to be from the Bedford Highway. If they got off the butts and built a roundabout diamond interchange at the Windsor Street Stock Exchange (two roundabouts, just like Larry Uteck, with Windsor Street going across between the two roundabouts, allowing a direct connection between Africville Road, Windsor Street, Bedford Highway, Mackay Bridge Connector, and Lady Hammond Rd), they would be able to have trucks enter the rail cut from Africville Road at minimal cost.

I would also have direct access to the cut via the abandoned Chester Line from Joseph Howe, besides the Africville Road access. NO need to build expensive ramps or widen the cut.

Joseph Howe between the 102 and the Fairview Overpass should be made either a RIRO expressway, a Michigan Left Boulevard, or a tight, four-lane freeway with single-lane, one-way service roads.

Michigan Left Boulevard would be the cheapest option for the portion adjacent to the abandoned CN Chester Subdivision - all left turns would be run through U-turn lanes, just like on US-41 in Marquette, Michigan, while striaght crossovers (where the cross road's through lanes go straight across the median are limited to exceptionally busy crossings). An example of this is seen here:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=46.5494,-87.445681&spn=0,0.002406&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=46.5494,-87.445552&panoid=yBDyr1NwY4zMrvx798Ox1g&cbp=12,64.66,,0,6.1

One exception, I would recommend YIELD signs instead of those stupid STOP signs in the median openings.

They should also make Connaught like this too. The portion of Joe Howe to the north of the Chester Line could be widened into a divided road by having property expropriation on the western side. Once things get too busy for a Michigan boulevard, a viaduct should be built overtop with central piers located on the median (the boulevard below would act as the service road).

[Keith P.]

The "abandoned Chester line" is not abandoned any more. HRM bought it, put in an 8' wide paved path, and has made it into a trail.

Yes, I agree that is a pretty worthless use of a potentially valuable right-of-way, but that is HRM for you.

[fenwick16]

I would like to see the municipality and province do even more. I would like to see a new major road artery leading from the peninsula to the Purcell's Cove area. I think that it is very important for the HRM to start focusing future growth on just one side of the harbour.

[beyeas]

The "abandoned Chester line" is not abandoned any more. HRM bought it, put in an 8' wide paved path, and has made it into a trail.

Yes, I agree that is a pretty worthless use of a potentially valuable right-of-way, but that is HRM for you.

The thing that annoyed me the most with that was the paving (even aside from hating to see the rail lines go). What a frickin waste of money, when a crushed gravel path is, if anything, nicer to walk/run on. And this is coming from someone who is pro alternative transport modes, but I still think this was a waste of tax dollars!

[rkannegi]

Oh, I already know about the 8ft trial along the Chester Line, which can easily be re-jigged into part of a Michigan Boulevard conversion (with full-width shard ped/bike sidewalks) along Joe Howe, and into an entrance to a combined train/truck road in the existing rail cut.

I've only recently made HRM aware of the Michigan Left and a bunch of other designs (when I ripped them a new one about Robie & Cunard). I even had one in mind back in 2008 for Chebucto Road (install Michigan left to the east of Mumford Road on the divided section) that would have mitigated much of the expropriation issues with the reversible lane, but I decided to stand back and let HRM get burned.

Yes, HRM needs to smarten up or else they WILL pay the price - in the form of a real-estate bust on the Peninsula which is already becoming an issue in regards to the proposed convention centre (office space demand downtown is plummeting, and now it's clear that even the RCMP is moving its offices off of the Peninsula). God forbid the day DND is forced to move CFB Halifax just so the base can sustain itself (I just can't wait to see the mess that HRM would be in for), considering that the roads that link the different fragments of the base are all congested now.

HRM needs to clean up its road system (widen where necessary and set aside strips of the ultimate width for buses and HOV's and get a grip on its transit system (stand up a city-wide network of terminal-terminal/high-damand-point-of-interest/major-employer express buses, with local shuttle buses that fan out from each terminal, similar to #8 Waterfront in relation to the 185). They should focus on getting bus/HOV lanes in before bike lanes - you're not going to have alot of people biking the whole length of the Bedford Highway.

Now the multi-use trail on the Chester Line WEST of Joe Howe makes sense - I've walked that way before going to the movie theatre from HSC, although it could also be used as a way of giving trucks a low-grade (<2% grade) uphill access to the 102 and the 103 via Chain Lake Drive from the Peninsula, instead of clogging the outbound 102 between Joe Howe and NWAD.