Port of Halifax, Windsor St Exchange upgrades

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Where these two proposed reconfigurations fail greatest for me is their failure to separate the port trucks from regular vehicle and pedistrian traffic. I would like to see the port trucks use a dedicated fly-over ramp to the north of where the rail-cut is that would hook them around to the correct direction and launch the trucks into traffic heading for the bridge, at speed, at or near the north end of the proposed overpass. Having the ramp at this location would also allow any eventual rail-cut come truck route to merge into other port truck traffic and head for the McKay unobstructed.

[Half-Axed]

i just found the solution guys:

https://bit.ly/3DokXw9

(SFW but Reddit so may be blocked by employers.)

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Where these two proposed reconfigurations fail greatest for me is their failure to separate the port trucks from regular vehicle and pedistrian traffic. I would like to see the port trucks use a dedicated fly-over ramp to the north of where the rail-cut is that would hook them around to the correct direction and launch the trucks into traffic heading for the bridge, at speed, at or near the north end of the proposed overpass. Having the ramp at this location would also allow any eventual rail-cut come truck route to merge into other port truck traffic and head for the McKay unobstructed.

It’s interesting how, like Michael Myers in another bad Halloween reboot, the idea of trucks in the rail cut refuses to die, at least in this forum.

It was always a lunatic idea, advanced by a few politicos, that was never going to happen. CN owns the property and has made it amply clear they have no interest in sharing it with trucks. Nor should they. There are a number of cities in North America (Los Angeles and Kansas City among them) that have spent billions in recent years to have what Halifax built a century ago, a completely grade-separated rail right-of-way through the heart of the city.

The goal is to move more container traffic away from trucks and onto the rails. (In 2019, rail had a 60-40 per cent tonnage advantage in Halifax over trucks and the plan is to increase the margin.) To that end, CN is increasing rail capacity by restoring the second track through the rail cut it removed a couple of decades ago. It’s part of the same federal investment of $47.5 million that funded the PSA South End Terminal (formerly Halterm) expansion from 500,000 TEU annual capacity to 750,000 TEU, and will fund the Fairview overpass rebuild. CN is investing $10 million of its own in the project.

CN’s outgoing president, J.J. Ruest, has been bullish on Halifax, insisting CN’s plan was to turn it into the “Prince Rupert of the East”. (According to a 2020 piece in Trains magazine, CN’s investment in Prince Rupert has doubled tonnage handled there since 2007 and now accounts for a quarter of the railroad’s intermodal volume. In 2019, container volume at Prince Rupert was 1.2 million TEUs. They expect it to double again in the next ten years.)

CN’s original plan was to have an ownership stake in the south end terminal. It lost out to PSA International, but the railroad has been working with PSA to boost landings at the port. Colorado-based transportation analyst Larry Gross points out that CN doesn’t have to poach much of the 7 million TEUs handled by New York/New Jersey to have a real impact. It’s “ripe for the picking”, he says, because Halifax is 20 hours closer to Mediterranean ports and containers move from ship to rail much faster and more cheaply.

There are a couple of red flags. CN’s bid to acquire Kansas City Southern and its Mexican trackage fell afoul of US regulators, putting CP back in play. CP hopes to see more intermodal traffic diverted to Saint John and proposes to spend $20 million to upgrade facilities there. And CN’s failure woke up activist investors who have argued CN’s intermodal strategy is wrong-headed. But Ruest insisted to an investor conference just this morning that the future of railroad growth is in intermodal. “It’s…the best product the railroad could have to compete with the highway and attract business that really should be on rail,” he said.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I've never been a fan of the idea of using the rail cut for truck traffic. It never made a lot of sense to me, to give up dedicated grade-separated rail service lines to a less-efficient means of transport. The idea of moving the containers meant for Maritime distribution by rail to a trucking depot located outside of the city (like Elmsdale or Truro) had always seemed like a better idea.

It's great news that CN is investing in reinstatement of tracks that it had torn up years ago. It's good to see that they have confidence in the future of container shipping and rail service in general. Moving more containers by rail instead of trucks is always a good thing, with positive benefits to our road system and the environment.

I had completely missed the 2019 CBC article that you linked to. It's interesting in that it appears that the plan is to move some containers from the downtown port by rail to Fairview, and transfer to trucks (presumably for delivery to Maritime locations?) there, which would serve to remove most of the heavy truck traffic from the downtown.

I also was amused by the city's overly-optimistic reports of progress for the Fairview overpass and Cogswell:

Construction is expected to begin in 2020. That would mean the realignment project for the Windsor Street Exchange will take place at the same time as the redevelopment of the Cogswell Street Interchange.

Here we are almost into 2022 and construction hasn't started on either, to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps you can attribute some of it to the Covid situation, but I'm not sure...

Also apparent is that the idea we have been tossing around about moving one of the container terminals to the old Imperial Oil refinery site is not likely to happen, with the rail investment happening on the Halifax side. It probably wasn't a practical alternative anyhow.

It will definitely be interesting to watch the changes happening over the next few years in this regard.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Jeeze, I regret tacking-on the final sentence of my last post because, pardon the pun, it seems to have 'de-railed' the intent of my post which was to suggest that there is, perhaps, a possible viable way to remove port truck traffic from the round-a-bouts or intersections of a redesigned Windsor Streee echange. Wouldn't removing the Fairview cove port truck traffic improve each of the two proposed designs? And, becasue it was brought up, why would rail traffic through the cut have to stop just because there exists an adjacent roadway? I've never personally gone down into the cut and measured the width of the cut, but from what I've seen from roadway bridges the cut seems plenty wide. I can't imagine blasting a few narrow spots would be so terrible either. But I'm no expert. Hopefully not being an expert is what's causing so few posts on this site lately.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Not an expert here, either. I don't think that's a requirement for posting on this forum...

I think your idea is sound - find a better way to route truck traffic to the major transportation routes. How to do it is the sticky point.

I've said all I intended to say about the rail cut - didn't mean to offend anybody, just giving my opinion.

Another factor is the planned replacement of the Mackay bridge at some point in the future. Last I heard is that a replacement was to be built alongside existing, though I'm sure there are many details yet to be worked out. I'm wondering if advantages/disadvantages of a new alignment are being taken into account with these design proposals.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not an expert here, either. I don't think that's a requirement for posting on this forum...

Thanks for this!

I think your idea is sound - find a better way to route truck traffic to the major transportation routes. How to do it is the sticky point.


The 'yield' intersection that the port truck traffic currently uses to enter Lady Hammond is where, not surprisingly, a pedestrian was struck and killed by a port truck last year. These port trucks do not seem shy. They are intimidating.

As others have said, there can be too much to look at when using a multi-lane round-a-bout and this is especially true when; pedestrians and bike traffic are added into the mix; the many directions to be accessed from this site given that this is essentially a termination point of a 100 series highway; expect drivers who are not familiar with HRM here as this site is a major entry site for tourists; it's a major rush hour corridor.

I suggest that a dedicated ramp from port property to a point where there can be a single merge point onto the 111, at appropriate speed, into traffic heading towards the MacKay is a better way.

I've said all I intended to say about the rail cut - didn't mean to offend anybody, just giving my opinion.

Another factor is the planned replacement of the Mackay bridge at some point in the future. Last I heard is that a replacement was to be built alongside existing, though I'm sure there are many details yet to be worked out. I'm wondering if advantages/disadvantages of a new alignment are being taken into account with these design proposals.

I would like to see evidence of our city council looking at the 'whole' of our city in terms of transportation. I don't believe this is happening (fast ferry). Most are aware that the bridge commission is its own entity but this fact can't be allowed to disadvantage citizens.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I would like to see evidence of our city council looking at the 'whole' of our city in terms of transportation. I don't believe this is happening (fast ferry). Most are aware that the bridge commission is its own entity but this fact can't be allowed to disadvantage citizens.

I don't think regional council is really equipped to do this kind of planning. They represent their districts and are elected for a term, while transportation planning should have a time horizon of perhaps 50 years.

NS actually does okay in this area with highways, and plans ahead by assembling land and so on, but that is not tied in well with roadways, while other forms of transportation are completely left out. The bridge commission lobbies only for bridges. HRM does some other stuff on an ad hoc basis. There is little coordination.

The best solution I know of is to create a transportation authority for the Halifax area. This would be similar to TransLink around here, or the MTA. Halifax Harbour Bridges and Halifax Transit would be put under the umbrella of the transportation authority. HRM and the province would fund the authority but it would always have its own planning activities. It might even have some of its own revenue sources, e.g. from gas taxes.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

It was always a lunatic idea, advanced by a few politicos, that was never going to happen. ... The goal is to move more container traffic away from trucks and onto the rails. (In 2019, rail had a 60-40 per cent tonnage advantage in Halifax over trucks and the plan is to increase the margin.) To that end, CN is increasing rail capacity by restoring the second track through the rail cut it removed a couple of decades ago.

Great to hear that the restoration of the track is happening. There were plans, going back a long time, to move containers out of the South End terminal and off the peninsula or at least out of the urban core on rail, then transfer some to trucks around Fairview or at an inland terminal. I remember years ago (early 2000's?) reading NS reports that included estimates of the price of the inland terminal.

I think it is a significant political problem in Halifax that these weird plans get so much airtime. Commuter rail suffered from this too as it was not really anchored to any concrete proposal and the media coverage was pretty confusing. The off-the-wall plans don't end up being built but there is only so much energy and political will and it's best to anchor it to reality.

Planning around here is not perfect but the transportation authority gets far out ahead in discussing future plans. There are already alignments circulating for rapid transit lines that might be built 10, 20, 30 years in the future, along with rationales for why one route might or might not be chosen. The Halifax equivalent of this is 2 sentences from HRM staff about why Halifax is too small and can't afford nice things. Instead there should be thought experiments and analyses of a range of plausible outcomes with concrete plans. Questions like how transportation will work on the peninsula with 50,000 more people living there and 200,000 more in the metro area (given factors like the volume of truck traffic in the city centre) are not really that far-fetched but I am not sure HRM has well-developed answers.

[Keith P.]

So far the only answers from HRM are more bike lanes and narrowed streets in the core to accommodate them. This has always been lunacy at a high level as any sort of a solution to our long-standing traffic woes but now with the explosive growth the city is experiencing it is coming home to roost.

Years ago we had a thing called the Metropolitan Authority that was responsible for some shared services among Halifax, Dartmouth and the former Halifax County pre-amalgamation. It seems something similar needs to happen now for transportation given that HRM has totally dropped the ball on that file and only wishes to cater to activist agendas. Hopefully the recently-announced initiatives where the province will be getting involved in things that were delegated to HRM as part of amalgamation will include robust and realistic transportation planning.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

So far the only answers from HRM are more bike lanes and narrowed streets in the core to accommodate them. This has always been lunacy at a high level as any sort of a solution to our long-standing traffic woes but now with the explosive growth the city is experiencing it is coming home to roost.

Years ago we had a thing called the Metropolitan Authority that was responsible for some shared services among Halifax, Dartmouth and the former Halifax County pre-amalgamation. It seems something similar needs to happen now for transportation given that HRM has totally dropped the ball on that file and only wishes to cater to activist agendas. Hopefully the recently-announced initiatives where the province will be getting involved in things that were delegated to HRM as part of amalgamation will include robust and realistic transportation planning.

Maybe an issue with Hollis street congestion is the reduction of lanes. Given the turning lanes and parking requirements, I don't know if an extra lane down Hollis would be possible.

But the idea of getting the container trucks off Hollis will assist. Earlier this week, I watched the intersection of Hollis and Duke.

Three container trucks were lined up at the red light. When the light turned green, it took the whole length of the green light for the container trucks to power up enough to pass through the intersection.

When the third truck passed through, the light turned red leaving a long line up of cars and other trucks in its wake. We're currently trying to channel 21st century vehicles through roads designed in the mid-1700's.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Maybe an issue with Hollis street congestion is the reduction of lanes. Given the turning lanes and parking requirements, I don't know if an extra lane down Hollis would be possible.

But the idea of getting the container trucks off Hollis will assist. Earlier this week, I watched the intersection of Hollis and Duke.

Three container trucks were lined up at the red light. When the light turned green, it took the whole length of the green light for the container trucks to power up enough to pass through the intersection.

When the third truck passed through, the light turned red leaving a long line up of cars and other trucks in its wake. We're currently trying to channel 21st century vehicles through roads designed in the mid-1700's.

I've seen this too and at other intersections downtown.
We need modern traffic solutions in the city, with tonnage expected to grow this problem will persist without a better plan then just laying track back down.
There is a tool governments have but rarely use in this type of situation.
Expropriation of the cut from CN, would solve many of the traffic issues the city deals with.

Instead of decades fighting CN, over who funds the road bridge repairs lets get rid of them. We should dig down a bit further and attempt something like a 18.65m wide single double-deck tunnel like this.




It would provide a north / south arterial road that doesn't route through residential streets with accesses at Barrington in the South end, Quinpool and Bayers continuing on to the Bedford Highway at the Windsor St. Exchange.

The top could be turned into a greenway with active transportation in mind, also it would provide additional park space along the entire peninsula.

It would take vision to execute this and sadly that is in short supply with staff and council these days. So, probably just a pipe dream of mine.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Thank you TNS for posting this pic! It strikes me now that the rail cut is essentially a pre-dug subway that just requires a cap (and, of course, ventilation, electricity, etc.). The top surface could be ideal for LRT and bike/ped pathways. Perhaps CN may even derive some benefit from having an enclosed railway? Certianly the city not incurring costs for excavation and land acquisition would be considered a plus.

[Keith P.]

^^^ That concept would not work with the double-stack container rail cars CN uses these days.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

When you say it won't work, do you mean two levels of traffic within the rail cut exactly as illustrated? if so, then I agree. But the rail cut does appear deep enough and wide enough to allow double stacked cars on two tracks. Currently there is just empty air space above the cut. Capping the cut would create an enormous right of way from one end of the peninsula to the other. As far as creating additional space on the peninsula, capping the cut might put the cogswell interchange project to shame.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

^^^ That concept would not work with the double-stack container rail cars CN uses these days.

As I dig deeper into the idea and read the successive studies the city has paid for over the years. I realize the idea of using the railway cut is not a new one, my main point is that covering the entire the rail while stacking the roadways would leave room for a double track line in a number of orientations.

With up to 36.7 m in width and just under 1 km long, covering the span would provide huge opportunities that would get naysayers and people on the fence to agree. One of those rare win - win situations if planned and executed correctly.

#1: Noise mitigation. Trying to do anything in the South End is going to be difficult but this would be the best place to start. Telling them they won't have to hear those train whistles at all hours of the night would sound like music to their ears.

#2: Traffic. Having a covered road during snowstorms or other weather events would be invaluable. Moving cars away from Oxford and Jubilee would be a dream for commuters. Getting off the Peninsula would be easier, part of why I think this is important is due to upgrades being done to the Windsor St. Exchange. Traffic would be directed into the Exchange and it should be part of the discussion. Whats being proposed just seems to be a patch not a fix to the growing traffic congestion we are experiencing. It seems zero plans the city has made, have been able to predict that the population would grow as it is today.

#3: Who doesn't love a park? A new park for staff to plan with an active transportation corridor along the length of the peninsula with access to both universities. Making both cyclists and drivers happy for once.

#4: A plethora of other uses like a community solar array, community gardens, integrating and expanding facilities at Conrose Park. I'm sure there are some I missed, but you see what I'm getting at?

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

As I dig deeper into the idea and read the successive studies the city has paid for over the years. I realize the idea of using the railway cut is not a new one, my main point is that covering the entire the rail while stacking the roadways would leave room for a double track line in a number of orientations.

With up to 36.7 m in width and just under 1 km long, covering the span would provide huge opportunities that would get naysayers and people on the fence to agree. One of those rare win - win situations if planned and executed correctly.

#1: Noise mitigation. Trying to do anything in the South End is going to be difficult but this would be the best place to start. Telling them they won't have to hear those train whistles at all hours of the night would sound like music to their ears.

#2: Traffic. Having a covered road during snowstorms or other weather events would be invaluable. Moving cars away from Oxford and Jubilee would be a dream for commuters. Getting off the Peninsula would be easier, part of why I think this is important is due to upgrades being done to the Windsor St. Exchange. Traffic would be directed into the Exchange and it should be part of the discussion. Whats being proposed just seems to be a patch not a fix to the growing traffic congestion we are experiencing. It seems zero plans the city has made, have been able to predict that the population would grow as it is today.

#3: Who doesn't love a park? A new park for staff to plan with an active transportation corridor along the length of the peninsula with access to both universities. Making both cyclists and drivers happy for once.

#4: A plethora of other uses like a community solar array, community gardens, integrating and expanding facilities at Conrose Park. I'm sure there are some I missed, but you see what I'm getting at?

Nice summation and just the type of thinking outside the 1950's box that the city seems to be stuck in. I knew this forum community would open up the imagination that we need to move the city in to the future.

Have at It folks . Think BIG!!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

When you say it won't work, do you mean two levels of traffic within the rail cut exactly as illustrated? if so, then I agree. But the rail cut does appear deep enough and wide enough to allow double stacked cars on two tracks. Currently there is just empty air space above the cut. Capping the cut would create an enormous right of way from one end of the peninsula to the other. As far as creating additional space on the peninsula, capping the cut might put the cogswell interchange project to shame.

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

As I dig deeper into the idea and read the successive studies the city has paid for over the years. I realize the idea of using the railway cut is not a new one, my main point is that covering the entire the rail while stacking the roadways would leave room for a double track line in a number of orientations.

With up to 36.7 m in width and just under 1 km long, covering the span would provide huge opportunities that would get naysayers and people on the fence to agree. One of those rare win - win situations if planned and executed correctly.

#1: Noise mitigation. Trying to do anything in the South End is going to be difficult but this would be the best place to start. Telling them they won't have to hear those train whistles at all hours of the night would sound like music to their ears.

#2: Traffic. Having a covered road during snowstorms or other weather events would be invaluable. Moving cars away from Oxford and Jubilee would be a dream for commuters. Getting off the Peninsula would be easier, part of why I think this is important is due to upgrades being done to the Windsor St. Exchange. Traffic would be directed into the Exchange and it should be part of the discussion. Whats being proposed just seems to be a patch not a fix to the growing traffic congestion we are experiencing. It seems zero plans the city has made, have been able to predict that the population would grow as it is today.

#3: Who doesn't love a park? A new park for staff to plan with an active transportation corridor along the length of the peninsula with access to both universities. Making both cyclists and drivers happy for once.

#4: A plethora of other uses like a community solar array, community gardens, integrating and expanding facilities at Conrose Park. I'm sure there are some I missed, but you see what I'm getting at?

I like it! This is an idea that had never crossed my mind, not for a minute, even though it's right there in front of us.

If it were possible to tie it into a third harbour crossing, it would really be a game-changer.

[Keith P.]

Speaking of the port and the Windsor St Exchange, last week I noticed that a fairly large but low building is going up some distance east of the Ceres terminal on the large landfill area that has been created there. Any idea what it is?

[q12]

It's an 11-bay, 2,700-square-metre building to be used by Canada Border Services Agency for examining shipping containers



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...lity-1.5924188