Third Harbour Crossing

[hfx_chris]

The only Dartmouth locations you could possibly put a container terminal would be either to use part of the Imperial Oil refinery land, probably the southern portion, or some portion of the Autoport land, or maybe a combination of that and the old Ultramar refiner/dock area.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Actually, I think the investment from the rail side would be rather minimal. There is already a rail line not too far from there to the gypsum terminal; so I think that would be covered off. The main concern would be proximity to a redeveloping area. I suspect it might not be compatible.

Esso refinery might work - I also thought the area next to the Autoport would be good (right below Main Road and Labrador Ave intersection).

Keith makes an interesting point - I seem to recall seeing a study on turning Halterm into a residential community too (now that would be a tax cash cow for the city given the land value). I would think that you would keep the rail cut open in the event that even if via service dried up; there would be a need for regional rail of some kind. Or you could use it for Halifax's version of the 'high line' - except it would be more like a low line (haha).

Keith's comment about CN rail makes my big picture thinking kick into economic development mode and I would want to sit down with both CN and the two container terminals and start having a discussion about growing business. What are the risks? How can the City help mitigate those risks for a certain period to help drum up business? For example - if CN won't increase train capacity; but it's needed to drum up business - could HRM (with help from the Province) float a subsidy for a couple of years as a means to help offset the risk to CN? Then - working together, take that news out to the shipping industry and see if that gets more traffic? This way you are helping CN mitigate the risks of losses for the additional trains and you may be able to get more traffic from the increased rail schedule. If you don't; then you just end the subsidy and CN drops the schedule back to what it was.

The emphasis in my way of thinking is cooperative risk taking. You never know unless you try - which is the opposite attitude to what (in general) seems to be the attitude of the maritimes which is "we have no money so don't bother". I don't believe that - the resources are there. Just have to partner with people to help mitigate risks.

I'd also add that if the rail service is something that we need to support for tourism; then perhaps that's yet another conversation to be had. I've yet to see any advertising for the Ocean and I've taken it twice - it's lovely. So was the Bras D'or tourist train. So perhaps there would be a way to float some $ to Via to help advertise this train elsewhere?

Placing a container terminal anywhere other than close to the gypsum dock is ludicrous. Navy Island at Wright's Cove was long ago considered for a terminal.
It is well away from any significant residential development and any impact is miniscule compared with trains trundling from E Passage past all the residential developments from Autoport to King's Wharf to NSP. How would the prospect of such traffic complement the proposed condo development adjacent to Alderney Drive as well as the WDC lands in Dartmouth Cove ? A minor development in Burnside is more important than 5,000 + residential units in the downtown ?
Time for a reality check folks.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Placing a container terminal anywhere other than close to the gypsum dock is ludicrous. Navy Island at Wright's Cove was long ago considered for a terminal.
It is well away from any significant residential development and any impact is miniscule compared with trains trundling from E Passage past all the residential developments from Autoport to King's Wharf to NSP. How would the prospect of such traffic complement the proposed condo development adjacent to Alderney Drive as well as the WDC lands in Dartmouth Cove ? A minor development in Burnside is more important than 5,000 + residential units in the downtown ?
Time for a reality check folks.

What do you think happens with all the containers going to and from the Fairview terminal? At least twice a day they go rumbling through residential neighbourhoods, which happen to contain many condo buildings. Non-issue IMHO.

[Dmajackson]

Building a container terminal in Woodside-Eastern Passage would be a bit ridiculous considering the rail impacts. It currently takes the Autoport trains 5-10 mins to cross in front of King's Wharf can you imagine how long it would take a train a hundred cars long to go by?

As for the noise rail lines make it is actually not that bad. My parents live less than a block from the mainline and you can barely hear it after a few visits. The train whistle that blows at King's Wharf is over the top (it can be heard in North-End Halifax) but that can be dealt with.

If the rail line can be upgraded to allow a speedier train and the whistle removed then a container terminal may be feasible. IMO though I would rather see the terminal elsewhere and the existing line reused for commuter rail.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

What do you think happens with all the containers going to and from the Fairview terminal? At least twice a day they go rumbling through residential neighbourhoods, which happen to contain many condo buildings. Non-issue IMHO.

They have no alternative at Fairview and most, if not all, condos were built post Fairview. Navy island area was identified decades ago as it was adjacent BIP and with a small amount of residential.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

You aren't seriously implying it should be a criminal act to built a single family detached home in Halifax are you?

Just what we need - to have the peninsula crammed with commie blocks.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yeah, I just roll my eyes when I read comments like that...

Not sure why there's anything wrong with higher density zoning. That has to do with having "commie blocks." In Halifax most multi-family residential tends to be small lowrise apartment buildings. But everyone who frequents this site should know that even larger buildings do not equal commie blocks. This isn't 1970.

There are plenty of great options for urban residential but detached single family in central parts of a metro area isn't one of them.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Not sure why there's anything wrong with higher density zoning.

There are plenty of great options for urban residential but detached single family in central parts of a metro area isn't one of them.

The part of the original quote that I was reacting to was: "Do not allow single family homes".

I realize that on a skyscraper site that a large percentage of the participants will aspire to live in an apartment or condo in a tall narrow building, which is fine, but the idea of making it impossible to build a single family home seems severe, especially for those who do not look at apartment living as their ultimate goal.

Obviously, there are situations where building a single family home wouldn't be practical, such as in the downtown business district. Perhaps if the original poster had tempered his post with such conditions, the reaction would have been different.

That's all.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Colin May

They have no alternative at Fairview and most, if not all, condos were built post Fairview.

I don't understand your argument here. You're saying that although most condos near the tracks from Fairview were built after the container terminal (and there has been train traffic through there on a regular basis even pre-Fairview terminal, so train traffic wasn't a "surprise"), but somehow growth in Dartmouth would come to a standstill because of an extra train travelling between Woodside and Burnside twice a day?

Navy island area was identified decades ago as it was adjacent BIP and with a small amount of residential.

Where exactly were they intending to put this? Right next to the Gypsum dock? Was this the plan for an alternate location to an existing container terminal? Is this near the Shannon Park location that was being discussed as a possible location for a stadium?

On the map it doesn't look like a bad location, really, depending upon its exact location. However, I don't think it's a fair assessment to label the other possibilities discussed here as "ludicrous", which is mostly what I'm reacting to.

And, I apologize for perpetuating this tangent which is becoming increasingly off-topic to a 3rd harbour crossing.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The part of the original quote that I was reacting to was: "Do not allow single family homes".

Obviously, there are situations where building a single family home wouldn't be practical, such as in the downtown business district. Perhaps if the original poster had tempered his post with such conditions, the reaction would have been different.

Precisely. The OP was intemperate in his (her) opinion. For some people, especially with several children and/or pets, a detached home will be the preferable option. To blatantly state that such housing options should be illegal is the issue here. The Stalinist implications of this is what led me to mention "commie blocks"........

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't understand your argument here. You're saying that although most condos near the tracks from Fairview were built after the container terminal (and there has been train traffic through there on a regular basis even pre-Fairview terminal, so train traffic wasn't a "surprise"), but somehow growth in Dartmouth would come to a standstill because of an extra train travelling between Woodside and Burnside twice a day?



Where exactly were they intending to put this? Right next to the Gypsum dock? Was this the plan for an alternate location to an existing container terminal? Is this near the Shannon Park location that was being discussed as a possible location for a stadium?

On the map it doesn't look like a bad location, really, depending upon its exact location. However, I don't think it's a fair assessment to label the other possibilities discussed here as "ludicrous", which is mostly what I'm reacting to.

And, I apologize for perpetuating this tangent which is becoming increasingly off-topic to a 3rd harbour crossing.

HRM wants to sell lands on the waterfront on Alderney Drive next to the existing rail tracks. Traffic has declined since the refinery shut down. More rail traffic makes the land less desirable/valuable.
I'm not sure of the exact location in Wright's Cove, the study was long ago. The west side of Navy Island was part of the plan and it would be more than one train a day. It is a better site because it is at the entrance to BIP and therefore reduces the mileage of truck traffic, reduces emissions, and reduces truck traffic on the bridges. The ordnance was the major problem.

[Jor D]

Third harbour crossings? LRT line up the Bedford HWY and the rail cut seem great and I love city building but... what if? Bear with me for a second. Is high density urbanization is all over Asia and it's spreading to halifax. If our population increases through greater density on the peninsula than we don't need third harbour crossings or LET'S. What we need is freedom for high rise development on the peninsula. Quaint neighborhoods on the peninsula need to sprout in places like Purcell cove and cherry brook but let the bulldozer and developers have freedom on the peninsula

[Jor D]

Third harbour crossings? LRT line up the Bedford HWY and the rail cut seem great and I love city building but... what if? Bear with me for a second. Is high density urbanization is all over Asia and it's spreading to halifax. If our population increases through greater density on the peninsula than we don't need third harbour crossings or LET'S. What we need is freedom for high rise development on the peninsula. Quaint neighborhoods on the peninsula need to sprout in places like Purcell cove and cherry brook but let the bulldozer and developers have freedom on the peninsula

[Jor D]

Jor D Jor D is online now
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1
Third harbour crossings? LRT line up the Bedford HWY and the rail cut seem great and I love city building but... what if? Bear with me for a second. Is high density urbanization is all over Asia and it's spreading to halifax. If our population increases through greater density on the peninsula than we don't need third harbour crossings or LET'S. What we need is freedom for high rise development on the peninsula. Quaint neighborhoods on the peninsula need to sprout in places like Purcell cove and cherry brook but let the bulldozer and developers have freedom on the peninsula
Edit/Delete

[Waye Mason]

To my mind it makes more sense to twin the MacKay or replace it with something 6-8 lanes wide. The highway is there already on both sides. If and when we get to that point.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

To my mind it makes more sense to twin the MacKay or replace it with something 6-8 lanes wide. The highway is there already on both sides. If and when we get to that point.

DUH!!!!
Now why would the illustrious councillor want all the crossings in the north end? Could it be because he lives in the south end and does not want the traffic on their streets?
Such special people, wanting to live in a city but without traffic or noise. He will do just about anything to avoid hi-rises in their area as well.
It makes no sense that everybody drives to the north of Dartmouth every morning and nobody drives to the south and they all cross to Halifax that has everybody driving south every morning and nobody driving north. We could widen the 111 similar to the 401 to accommodate and then they can crawl down Robie or Barrington single file.
Does the illustrious councillor have a conflict of interest or has he gone mad?

[Nouvellecosse]

Is it not possible to avoid such personal attacks? You can present a counter argument or explain your preference for a different option without directly attacking someone's objectivity.

[Nor'easter]

You can hardly call the Halifax end of the MacKay a "highway"... It can't even handle the current throughput at peak times.

Viaduct to the 102 before considering any additional lanes.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Is it not possible to avoid such personal attacks? You can present a counter argument or explain your preference for a different option without directly attacking someone's objectivity.

Except when the elected councillor is so blatantly NOT OBJECTIVE.

[ILoveHalifax]

Someday the people of Halifax will have to accept the fact that the city is growing up despite the efforts of those in the south end. There will need to be a third crossing in the south end as well as a bridge across the North West Arm.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Is it not possible to avoid such personal attacks? You can present a counter argument or explain your preference for a different option without directly attacking someone's objectivity.

Well, it was a pretty idiotic statement by one of our municipal "leaders". If we accept we need additional harbor crossing capacity, which even the councillor seems to accept, then why would you add that to the most remote end of the city when the analysis already completed in '08 showed where the best location would be? The motivation for it does seem pretty transparent, just like the opposition to a mid-rise on Wellington St that would be dwarfed by existing taller buildings. We are in Council member pandering season it seems.