The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by thefishingnut

The impetus for the new road is truck traffic, not cars. Cutting a few hours off the trip from the Maritimes to central Canada for transport trucks would be huge.

Indeed. The Trans-Maine is presumably for Irving Oil trucks and their forestry trucks in central and northern Maine. Another big plus would be tourist traffic between Quebec and the Francophone areas of New Brunswick. This would be most evident in summer tourism driving. There are apparently a good number of people that drive here in the summer from Quebec as is.

Personally i'd drive the highway quite often if Montreal was only six/seven hours away.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by thefishingnut

The impetus for the new road is truck traffic, not cars. Cutting a few hours off the trip from the Maritimes to central Canada for transport trucks would be huge.

Not car traffic at all? I was under the impression they are both important. If you're claiming truck traffic is more influencial -- then alright. I'll take your word for it.

Does it make sense to transport via truck, from Halifax to Toronto -- or is it more efficient to transport via ship to Montreal/Toronto?

We'll see if there's enough truck traffic to justify a new highway. This investment would more narrowly focus NB's finances within the south. The north certainly doesn't have a bright future, as I see it.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Another big plus would be tourist traffic between Quebec and the Francophone areas of New Brunswick.

You believe Quebecers will drive south, to Sherbrooke, then drive east along this new highway to New Brunswick's south, then drive north?

[theshark]

Can you imagine, your car getting searched going in the states, then back in Canada!! unpacked twice and you are not event there yet!

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

You believe Quebecers will drive south, to Sherbrooke, then drive east along this new highway to New Brunswick's south, then drive north?

They already make the drive through Quebec, Temiscouata, Edmundston, and then all the way south. So, yes. If the drive is being cut by three hours then I don't see why the traffic wouldn't increase. A lot of people prefer driving and seeing sights rather than only seeing airport terminals.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by JHikka

They already make the drive through Quebec, Temiscouata, Edmundston, and then all the way south. So, yes. If the drive is being cut by three hours then I don't see why the traffic wouldn't increase. A lot of people prefer driving and seeing sights rather than only seeing airport terminals.

I agree that driving is a more agreeable way of travelling, and if the whole family is along for the ride, it will also be a lot cheaper than flying.

I zip down to Washington DC about every 18 months or so. I have both flown down and driven (twice). If you want to really form an appreciation for the countryside and an understanding of the rural and small town folk along the way, then driving is the way to go.

Of course, if you are an urban elitist who has no appreciation for small town life, then flying directly and wasting hours in airline terminals would be a lot more palatable than communing with the little people.

BTW, I do think that a lot of vacationing Quebecers would still drive via autoroute 20 rather than taking the trans Maine route. It would allow them to stay in province and would be linguistically and ethnically more comfortable for them.

The strength of the trans Maine route will be for:
- commercial and truck traffic both to and from Ontario and the US northeast.
- Ontario tourists who want to minimize the travel time in Quebec
- people in a hurry to get to Montreal and points west

The city that will benefit the most (by far) from the trans Maine highway will be Saint John. It will put SJ back on the main North American highway system. In the past Saint John was bypassed both by the TCH and I-95. This will redress that omission.

The trans Maine highway will be less important for Moncton and Halifax. Fredericton (and points north) will be hurt a little. Fredericton will survive (universities, government, military), but the upper river valley could be in some trouble.

Personally, I might try the trans Maine route for the novelty of it, but I think that unless I am in a hurry, I will still be tempted to stay in Canada and take the TCH when I go to central Canada.

[thefishingnut]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Not car traffic at all? I was under the impression they are both important. If you're claiming truck traffic is more influencial -- then alright. I'll take your word for it.

Does it make sense to transport via truck, from Halifax to Toronto -- or is it more efficient to transport via ship to Montreal/Toronto?

We'll see if there's enough truck traffic to justify a new highway. This investment would more narrowly focus NB's finances within the south. The north certainly doesn't have a bright future, as I see it.

There is a very high percentage of trucks doing the long haul, especially when you consider that the Seaway is closed 3 months a year.

I doubt shipping from Halifax to central Canada is all that significant. The Port of Halifax lists few carriers offering Halifax to Montreal services, none for Halifax to Toronto services. And it's orders of magnitude longer to ship by ship. CMA for example lists once weekly departures (once the ice is gone), and transit time is 23 days from Halifax to Montreal. I lived in Toronto for 10 years, but I'm drawing a blank thinking of where around Toronto ship carrier services (i.e. containers) are anything of significance.

Cars are a bit of gravy for routes, but tolls per axle I think is what would drive a new toll road. Cobequid Epass - $2 for cars, $12.50 for a 5 axle truck/trailer. It would be a similar proportion for a Maine toll road.

[Peter_johnns]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Let's review some factors in play...

- Quebec, including Premier Pauline Marois, is expressing interest in the west-to-east pipeline, with it ending at the port of Montreal.

- The world wants to stop using fossil fuels, and this desire will strengthen as the effects of Rapid Climate Change hinder economic growth.

- The Americans are hellbent on getting their north-to-south pipeline approved; their alternative route, around the sensitive Nebraskan watershed has been declared safe by state governments, despite the science showing otherwise.

- Protests in Canada and around the world regarding the protection of the environment/economy (you cannot separate the two) are likely to increase.

Money talks my friend. This is a sad reality that you cant ignore. The day of oil will end, but not this century. Canada wants to become more self sufficient with our own oil Tom Mulcair also agrees with this proposal. Feds are convinced that this pipeline (to Saint John) is almost equally as significant as the trans Canada highway or the railroad. Ottawa has been looking closely at SJ and the refinery we have and have been sending officials to discuss proposals. This will be big for SJ and subsequently NB

[DizzyEdge]

Looking at an old article about the trans-Maine highway, it was suggested that an Alberta -> SJ pipeline could also follow that route.. although I suppose there's already existing pipelines which can do the job so probably scratch that.

Anyway, if the route was built and it became popular, it would create a situation where travellers to Fredericton, Moncton, PEI, and NS would all go through SJ. Very cool.

Actually I guess the interchange to get to Fredericton is a bit before SJ, so you'd want to put a giant full colour skyline/billboard brochure of SJ right here saying " only 6 mins away!"

https://maps.google.com/?ll=45.229508,-6...90IcmyXukCO1PscymWA&cbp=12,93.46,,0,0.69

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Anyway, if the route was built and it became popular, it would create a situation where travellers to Fredericton, Moncton, PEI, and NS would all go through SJ. Very cool.

Presumably people travelling to/from Fredericton/Central NB would be able to take the 95 west and south until they reach the Trans-Maine highway itself, rather than driving Highway 7 south and Highway 1 west to the border.

Everywhere else would be Trans-Maine -> Highway 1 through Saint John as it would be quicker than using Highway 2 through Fredericton.

[Southpaw78]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Is that rate for the City of Saint John (CMA) or for the region of Saint John (Sussex-St. Stephen)?

I believe that number is for the City itself, while the CMA is 8.8% according to Stats Can....

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/lfss04b-eng.htm

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Presumably people travelling to/from Fredericton/Central NB would be able to take the 95 west and south until they reach the Trans-Maine highway itself, rather than driving Highway 7 south and Highway 1 west to the border.

Everywhere else would be Trans-Maine -> Highway 1 through Saint John as it would be quicker than using Highway 2 through Fredericton.

That's a good point, they likely would.

[Peter_johnns]

Who needs to lobby for this highway?

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by JHikka

They already make the drive through Quebec, Temiscouata, Edmundston, and then all the way south. So, yes. If the drive is being cut by three hours then I don't see why the traffic wouldn't increase. A lot of people prefer driving and seeing sights rather than only seeing airport terminals.

They drive all the way south is they desire to see the anglophone areas of New Brunswick. I would have to add up the distances on a map, which I'll try to do tonight on google for the sake of my own curiousity, but I suspect that for many Quebecers, using the old routes and remaining in northern NB would be a shorter distance.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

They drive all the way south is they desire to see the anglophone areas of New Brunswick. I would have to add up the distances on a map, which I'll try to do tonight on google for the sake of my own curiousity, but I suspect that for many Quebecers, using the old routes and remaining in northern NB would be a shorter distance.

By south I was referencing Moncton/Shediac.

Do you think more travel to the Péninsule-Acadienne than to Dieppe/Shediac/Moncton? I'd be interested to see some numbers either way. I think it would be difficult to compare the old routes against a possible new route that doesn't actually exist yet if you're using Google Maps. There is a planned route for the Trans-Maine floating around somewhere, which would result in guesswork more than anything else when calculating distances. You would also have to take into account where people would be travelling FROM in Quebec.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Peter_johnns

Money talks my friend. This is a sad reality that you cant ignore. The day of oil will end, but not this century. Canada wants to become more self sufficient with our own oil Tom Mulcair also agrees with this proposal. Feds are convinced that this pipeline (to Saint John) is almost equally as significant as the trans Canada highway or the railroad. Ottawa has been looking closely at SJ and the refinery we have and have been sending officials to discuss proposals. This will be big for SJ and subsequently NB

Money does talk. And it will be talking quite loudly in the coming decades: money required to repair storm-damaged municipalities -- money to subsidise farmers after seasons of ruined crops due to drought and flash floods -- money to subsidise the poor and lower-middle income people against the rising prices of food and everything else.

So if money talks, we must realise this growing amount of money that is necessary in dealing with Rapid Climate Change -- and weigh it against what the money of fossil fuels has to say.

If money talks, I believe the former, quite frankly, will soon be screaming.

I understand what a pipeline may mean for Saint John; I was just trying to be realistic in acknowledging some of the hurdles. We live in a reality of unnatural Rapid Climate Change, and it isn't going away. The pipeline has to go through other provinces -- provinces that may not be willing.

If the pipeline does get approved and helps Saint John's economy in the short-term -- then good for SJ (in the short-term). I would hope for long-term thinking, however.

[Peter_johnns]

People this highway is not to simply take into account tourists...because there would be no point. Were talking trade and shipping— the port of Saint John and such.

[Peter_johnns]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Money does talk. And it will be talking quite loudly in the coming decades: money required to repair storm-damaged municipalities -- money to subsidise farmers after seasons of ruined crops due to drought and flash floods -- money to subsidise the poor and lower-middle income people against the rising prices of food and everything else.

So if money talks, we must realise this growing amount of money that is necessary in dealing with Rapid Climate Change -- and weigh it against what the money of fossil fuels has to say.

If money talks, I believe the former, quite frankly, will soon be screaming.

I understand what a pipeline may mean for Saint John; I was just trying to be realistic in acknowledging some of the hurdles. We live in a reality of unnatural Rapid Climate Change, and it isn't going away. The pipeline has to go through other provinces -- provinces that may not be willing.

If the pipeline does get approved and helps Saint John's economy in the short-term -- then good for SJ (in the short-term). I would hope for long-term thinking, however.

People do not simply build coast to coast pipelines for short term benefits lol. The whole point of this pipeline is long term viability... The environmental impact on what is happening now is far worse than the pipeline would be.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Peter_johnns

The whole point of this pipeline is long term viability... The environmental impact on what is happening now is far worse than the pipeline is.

I'm obviously misunderstanding you. Please clarify what you mean by how what is happening now, environmentally, is worse....than the environmental harm that would come from destroying many kms of forest to lay another pipeline, to continue using fossil fuels to further impact the globe with more warming...

What I'm trying to convey, essentially, is that at some point very soon, there is going to be a movement of desperation to completely get off fossil fuels entirely -- because the process of Rapid Climate Change is gaining momemtum -- a momemtum that cannot simply be turned off overnight. In fact, even if the world were to magically stop using fossil fuels by tomorrow morning, the globe would still gradually warm for the next 30 years because of the lag effect of carbon and methane distribution throughout the atmosphere.

We are so far into this game of carbon, that it is no longer an issue of stopping the use of these dirty forms of energy; we must now develop effective technologies to remove the carbon with which we've already flooded our atmosphere.

Global Warming isn't a bad thing. It has happened before. The BAD thing is the SPEED. Rapid warming overwhelms ecologies, as they cannot migrate northward that quickly. Our oceans also cannot handle the drop in pH (acidic) so quickly.

Climate Change is meant to be extreeeeeeemely gradual, occurring over thousands of years.

[Peter_johnns]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I'm obviously misunderstanding you. Please clarify what you mean by how what is happening now, environmentally, is worse....than the environmental harm that would come from destroying many kms of forest to lay another pipeline, to continue using fossil fuels to further impact the globe with more warming...

What I'm trying to convey, essentially, is that at some point very soon, there is going to be a movement of desperation to completely get off fossil fuels entirely -- because the process of Rapid Climate Change is gaining momemtum -- a momemtum that cannot simply be turned off overnight. In fact, even if the world were to magically stop using fossil fuels by tomorrow morning, the globe would still gradually warm for the next 30 years because of the lag effect of carbon and methane distribution throughout the atmosphere.

We are so far into this game of carbon, that it is no longer an issue of stopping the use of these dirty forms of energy; we must now develop effective technologies to remove the carbon with which we've already flooded our atmosphere.

Global Warming isn't a bad thing. It has happened before. The BAD thing is the SPEED. Rapid warming overwhelms ecologies, as they cannot migrate northward that quickly. Our oceans also cannot handle the drop in pH (acidic) so quickly.

Climate Change is meant to be extreeeeeeemely gradual, occurring over thousands of years.

Not sure if you are simply misunderstanding me, or you just are reading up on these things. The pipeline is not going to rip kms of forests down. It will connect with existing pipelines heading eastward and perhaps travel along or under proposed highways. I really can't be certain about what it will mean because it is only in early discussions. As of now oil is being shipped from the south and by rail. Before you post exasperating comments, try doing a bit of research.