Comments on: Commuter Cut – Follow Up

By: David Parkes

David Parkes — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:33:17 +0000

Bill,
Please revisit the study that showed it would cost only $46 Million (not $200 Million) to pave one lane of the railcut and make a reversible transit way which could be used by trucks exiting the South end outside of rush hours. One way in, in the morning and one way out after 9.30 AM; closed at 8.00 PM. Then maybe commuters would leave their cars at home and take the (express) bus.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:22:00 +0000

The probability of sea level rise tends to force planners to hold on to the South End Container Terminal. The clearance under the bridges for the Post Panamax ships is tight now.

The best solution in the long term is probably not to build shoreline development higher to aaccount for seal level rise, but when, or if, sea level rise becomes a serious problem, dyke off the harbour at Georges Island and control the levels with a lock/dyke management system so that we never have to spend the billions raising shoreline tracks, roads and infrastructure. You even can get a “free” third crossing out of it, lining up directly with the rail cut.

I see no reason why the rail cut cannot simply be paved, and shared by trucks and trains. There are already truck marshalling yards at each end where trucks can wait until the way is clear. They can drive on pavement with the tracks in it. We all can, and do, in cities with trams.

That gets the steady stream of trucks off of Hollis and Lower Water/Water Street, meaning that capacity for cars there is greatly increased and the tourism experience is no longer affected by the noise and dirt.

By: Darren Genge

Darren Genge — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 14:22:27 +0000

Anything that makes living in the downtown more attractive than the burbs is a good thing. I want to live on the peninsula but can’t afford it, something has gotta give. Imagine if we never has HalTerm in the south end. Barrington wouldn’t look like a logging road. We need politicians with vision.

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 23 May 2011 18:42:49 +0000

Don perhaps you would support the idea if cars with more than one occupant had preferred or exclusiive access?

By: Tim McGee

Tim McGee — Sun, 22 May 2011 12:23:51 +0000

Dear Mr. Black;
I read the comments in the Newspaper about tearing up the tracks in the railway cut. Very little rail traffic uses these railway lines. However, there is another option (a free one) to tearing up the tracks, while still providing commuter access to a quick downtown commute.

You have probably been in Burnside, when the traffic has been halted while the CN rail crews put one of their crew trucks from the pavement onto the rails to travel on the rail bed. Essentially some steel wheels extend from the bottom of the truck to contact with the rails and support the weight of the truck on the rails. The rubber tires provide propulsion for forward movement.

Last summer, I visited Calgary and went to see the Columbia Ice Field. (I have pictures if you send me your e-mail address.) We traveled in a custom made coach designed to go on glaciers. The same Calgary company that makes these coached, could be induced to modify, one or two Metro transit buses to extend many steel wheels to ride the existing rail line.

A royalty agreement on future sales could be arranged to offset the R& D costs, a financial Institution, or private investors could be found to cover any up front expense.

Commuters could leave their cars at several places and board the special buses. Then the buses would drive up to loading ramps on railway spurs. The many steel wheels would be extended and the the bust would begin the rail portion of the journey.

By: Don Dougherty

Don Dougherty — Sat, 21 May 2011 11:44:15 +0000

Three questions for Mr. Black:

Is it acceptable to him that about 85% of commuters ride onto the peninsula alone in their cars? Is he happy to pander to these people who refuse to car-pool? Do these commuters share any of the responsibility for having created the problem?

By: Don Dougherty

Don Dougherty — Sat, 21 May 2011 11:23:21 +0000

Mr. Bill Black is on his ‘soap-box’ again, recommending that the rail cut be converted into a highway in order to alleviate rush hour traffic problems. According to his theory of traffic flow, he believes that building another road into the downtown area will ease traffic congestion. I recommend that Mr. Black do some relevant research, and realize that studies have shown that more roads will lead to more traffic. The downtown core is already congested with cars. Some businesses are already leaving the downtown core, due in part to the congestion issue.

As well, if Mr. Black still ignores the research, then at least he should focus the solution to the traffic-congestion problem onto those very motorists who create the problem. From my observations, about 85% of cars entering the peninsula are single-passenger vehicles. Simple ‘car-pooling’ by only a fraction of those commuters would mitigate the problem.

An expert in the rail industry described the next 20 years as ‘the second age of rail’. Rail transportation is becoming even more environmentally preferable to road traffic, and will become a more effective mode of transportation. If Mr. Black gets ‘his way’, then Halifax will have lost a great opportunity for commuter rail, the way of the future.

Some creative thinking is required to solve this issue, not the 1960’s thinking that Mr. Black is using.