Commuter Cut
Thursday, December 10, 2009
It takes too long to get to the urban core of Halifax from outside the peninsula. Many commuters report travel times of forty-five minutes to as much as an hour and a half, much too high for a city of less than 400,000 people.
There is a great opportunity to better use our south end port lands and the rail cut that accesses them.
Join the Conversation on…
This narrative has not benefited from any new engineering or financial study. It proposes a question to be properly addressed both by professionals doing the calculations and by interested citizens contributing ideas.
Comments of all kinds are welcome. Here are some questions on which we would particularly like to hear:
- Do you commute from outside the peninsula? From where (first three digits of postal code would be great)? How long does it take? How much time might this idea save you?
- Do you like the idea? Is it worth it for government to do the study?
- If a decision was made to discontinue use of the land for a container terminal and rail yards, what kind of uses would you favor for the land that became available?
- The Dartmouth downtown area has many of the same advantages as the urban core but it has not had its fair share of development. A contributing factor is the rail yards between it and the harbor which perform a necessary function in support of the refinery and auto port. Is there another way that support can be provided? Are there other obstacles to more active development of Dartmouth downtown?
- Are there other ideas to reduce travel times, especially for commuters from the Dartmouth side?
Comments
JOIN THE CONVERSATION | Comment / Privacy Policy
Rob Smith
I have long believed in this approach to using the rail cut. Like you I don’t know the finances, but I think a serious study should be undertaken about this matter with all advantages included. But I commute, have for more than 30 years, I now use transit whenever possible, but a light rail route using the existing tracks has always seemd sensible to me.
And I think combining the container ports at Fairview also makes sense–but I don’t think moving them to Dartmout as some have suggested is realistic. Good thinking.
Rob Smith
Waverley.
Leo Currie
I’m concerned, and as much as I would prefer security treats to not even be a consideration…the security of Halifax’s Harbour and surrounding urban, residential, and commercial areas, along with Canada’s East Coast Naval Fleet is at a higher risk every time a container moves deeper into the port, through the narrows and into the Bedford Basin. Halterm’s location at the mouth of the harbour is ideally suited for such concerns, though the rail cut does offer other options on getting more vehicular traffic into the urban core I believe it may be better suited for commuter rail service that connects to existing modes such as Via Rail and Acadia Lines and perhaps a metrotransit hub that operates from the same area as Via, while maintaining it’s current use as a container corridor. As for studies, two planning schools use to operate in Halifax and now one does I am sure there is plenty of information available that spans the 70’s through to 2010.
Josiah MacQUarrie
Love the idea. Absolutely love it.
The main problem I recall from the last time this idea was discussed was serious resistance from the South End homeowners. I would love to hear ideas on how this idea will be sold to the very vocal residents that will oppose it.
CJ Dobson
It bothered me 25 years ago that I couldn’t economically get from downtown Halifax to MSVU by train – it would have cost about $25/week vs 80 cents/bus ride. The 20 minutes it would have taken was a much better use of my time than the 1 hour bus ride.
I was intrigued to learn the old railliners are sitting in Moncton. What a sin. Surely they could be fixed up, outfitted with modern seating and internet connections and be used to bring people into the city from Windsor, Fall River and beyond… on both sides of the harbour. Conversely, they could take students from the downtown to MSVU or to make connections in Bedford to RIM and other businesses in that area.
I often have to take the bus to Bedford for early morning meetings and it astounds me at the percentage of vehicles with one person in them combined with the lack of high speed bus service that would take those cars off the road.
Some practicality is required.
Bill
Thanks for your comment. The proposal studied last year was for trucks in addition to trains. The widening process of thatwould be hugely disruptive for those living next to the rail cut. This proposal involves very little widening and pretty well eliminates the trucks. The cars and buses should travel at city street speeds. And we need to remember the huge benefit to those who live near the harbour of eliminating the five hundred trucks a day along Lower Water Street.
Bill
Bill
Thanks for contributing. A number of people have talked about commuter rail recently. Outside the peninsula the city’s development strategies have promoted sprawl rather than the concentrations that would be needed to make commuter rail work. And initiating it would be surprisingly expensive–stations with parking, a second rail bed,acquiring and refurbishing trains.
The high speed bus services have been a big success and should be expanded.
Rob Lovett
Leo’s comment on security resonates with me. 1917 comes to mind.
That aside.
Perhaps Ceres (Fairview Container Terminal) would make a better parking lot for cars along with combining it with a secondary transit node that connects with the new primary metro hub in the Halifax’s south end by rail.(dare to dream) As for transport/containers moving through the city…confining such movements of goods should be regulated through the rail cut, there by increasing and legitimatizing it’s use. Also, any questionable materials could be moved through the rail corridor which has 20-30 +/- foot sides that also adds further safety in the event of combustibles or heavy gases. Rail traffic/logistics could be handled at Ceres which could be re-purposed to handle rail cargo that moves up from the Primary coastal shipper/receiver … Halterm, There by using the Fairview Cove area as part of a intermodal system that handles Cargo from rail to flatbed , Public Transit/ RT, Commuter Traffic at the peninsulas outer boundary seems to make alot of sense. Density will increase on the peninsula and more cars and options for cars is problematic. The rail corridor can also re-purposed to handle pedestrian and bike paths, as it stands trails have been in informal use at the corridors upper easterly edge for years.
I under stand that there is cost and a bottom line in every thing that we do, but when I look around and see the wondrous in the world….I dont think the cheapest most cost effective solutions are the best for long term change that is sustainable and responsible for long term growth.
Speaking as a consumer I have never been wowed by anything that was cheaply made, nor have I bought it.
This city has been studied to death… lets get on with it and study our results in action.
William Gurney
The Interview with Mr. Black on 21 01 10 reduced my respect for him to a negative factor. To whom did he sell soul to? To combine Ceres and Halterm on one site would be tantamount to be asking asking Burgher King and MacDonalds to share the same space on a as required basis due to volume being down!!!! We could build condos, houses, green spaces or other higher income generating business on the vacated property. Sears and Walmart? Tim Hortons and Starbucks? TD building and Trade Mart building downtown can share space. BMO and Royal Bank. This will create lovely green spaces on the vacated property after re-developement. Just imagine the view from Citadel Hill!!! Stay tuned.
Bill
What is important is that the Fairview Cove location can handle all the traffic, so there will be little impact on jobs. It is less important whether there is one operator or two. Remember that there is already a monopoly supplier(CN) for transporting the containers inland. The space is not suitable for big box stores or high rises.. Look instead at the adjacent developments such as the Farmer’s Market or Bishop’s landing. And almost anything would represent a better transition from Point Pleasant Park to the harbour.
Doug Taylor
An interesting solution, but I’m deeply concerned about the impact on property values of any changes to the use of the rail cut. There is a solution that could address these concerns and provide a much larger benefit to the area. It would be very expensive, I’m sure, but it could be worth it. The rail cut could be turned into a tunnel. Inside the tunnel could be used for cars, etc. (noise and pollution) and above could be green space used for bike paths, parkland, and walkways. The construction would still be disruptive to the neighbourhood, of course, but in the long-term it could improve property values, instead of reducing them. Not sure if a study has been done on this, but it might be worth considering. Here’s what they did with an old abandoned rail-line in New York: http://www.thehighline.org/ Pretty clever. When they did this, they revitalized an entire neighbourhood. Not only did they gain incredible green space above, they also created great opportunities below.
Rob O’Brien
Bill,
I just wanted to offer my support for your idea. Please don’t listen to the William Gurney’s of the world, this idea has merit and should be explored. And remember there are plenty of people in Halifax that recognize there are more important things than the view from Citdel Hill, that is not what makes this city great.
Bill
Doug thanks for this.
Any significant road project has implications pro and con.But it is not neccessarily clear that this is adverse for the adjacent property owners. Look at it from the other direction: Would the residents of Connaught Avenue be better off if it was a rail line instead of a street?
For the residents of Lower Water Street and Hollis Street this idea is a huge improvement.
Bill
Thanks Rob. The view from Citadel Hill would improve considerably if it did not include cranes and deteriorating grain elevators.
Bill
Doug Taylor
Thanks for you response to my comments, Bill. I agree that the people on Connaught are better off with a street than a railroad; however, that street is at the same level as their properties, more or less. Not so with those along the rail cut; having a train run infrequently and so far below street level that it is out of sight and largely out of ear-shot isn’t so bad. Cars and trucks will bring much more noise and pollution. Also, those of us who bought along the cut knew there was a train. Just as the folks on Hollis and Upper Water knew what they were getting into. The property values reflect these things. However, there is another solution that I think should be considered. That is to spend some more money and gain many more acres of public green space to improve the livability of our city. At the same time, this would improve property values of the residents in all areas. Use the cut for light rail, cars, what you wish. But close it off to keep the noise and pollution down (many major cities have tunnels – the difference is that we wouldn’t actually have to dig). On top, build green space. This would seem to address everything that you are trying to accomplish and much more. There is a cost, and I’m sure it is high, but isn’t it worth at least considering?
David Parkes
Rail cut TransitWay the best solution
In 2004 HRM Council was presented with a study offering two options for the use of the CN rail cut to facilitate either commuter bus or container truck traffic to and from downtown Halifax. One option, which CN was willing to discuss with HRM, explored the idea of constructing a one-way roadway beside the existing rail line, separated by a concrete barrier. This option consists of an exclusive rail line and a 3.7 metre roadway to accommodate directional one-way traffic and a 2.5 metre shoulder on each side of the roadway to provide sufficient space for a truck or bus to manoeuvre around a disabled vehicle. The estimated cost of this option was $40 Million.
More recently the Province commissioned another study which recommended an incredibly expensive, $270 Million proposal to expand the rail cut to accommodate two rail lines and a two lane highway, and to replace 12 bridges. Needless to say the Province rejected this ridiculous proposal, but in doing so it appears to have stopped further consideration of the use of the rail cut for trucks and transit. Unfortunately, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.
It is time to revisit the 2004 report. The cost, at $40 Million, is much less than the fast ferries and their terminals or new rapid transit trains and their stations, and the benefits are much greater. In addition, by building a roadway that will serve container trucks and busses, it is possible that much of the required funding could come from the federal government through the Atlantic Gateway fund (50%) and the federal transit funding ($13 Million) which the Mayor has already earmarked for his fast ferries.
With a single lane highway option, express busses would flow into Halifax in the early morning and trucks and busses would flow out of Halifax for the rest of the day. We could run express busses from Bedford, Clayton Park, Sackville, and Tantallon into the heart of downtown from 6.30 AM until 9.00 AM. At 9.30 AM loaded container trucks could begin to exit Halifax through the rail cut and access Highway 102 at Joseph Howe. At 3.30 PM express busses would again use the rail cut to transport commuters home. At 7.30 PM all traffic on the rail cut roadway would cease until 6.30 the following morning.
Building a single lane highway in the rail cut would provide a golden opportunity to improve our transit bus system and help us achieve our goal of 23% commuter ridership by 2026. It would also assist in managing traffic growth into downtown Halifax and supporting the downtown area as an employment and activity centre within HRM.
It would allow us to take heavy container trucks off our downtown streets and bring benefits in terms of reduced traffic congestion, road maintenance, noise and vibration, and air quality.
We could achieve all these goals and still ensure that South End residents enjoy their peace and quiet in the evenings.
Bill
David thanks for that important history. I agree that the idea studied last year was ridiculous. Your suggestion is an improvement on the status quo and a better idea than the fast ferry. But using the rail cut entirely for vehicles, and capitalizing on the opportunity with the land is in my view even better. If a study is done it would not add much cost to look at both.
William Gurney
Bill and Rob O’Obrien. My comments are strictly related to a debate between Mr. Black and somebody [apologies, dementia etc] at 7:22 on Information Morning on 21 01 10. Perhaps Mr. Black could attach the interiew to this blogh so people could see what ridiculous statements were made.Probably not!!! My comments were in the same context as Mr. Blacks response.Thank you to Mr. Doug Taylor. For a city of 400,000 this is a viable option. The 100 residents along the line could fund the construction. HRM has acres and acres and acres of land that can developed for green space at
Murray Coolican
Bill,
Your idea for the cut and the harbour lands is great. We should be looking at the cut and the harbour lands as a public resource and then figure out the best use.
My priorities for the cut would be public transit and bicycles. Beyond that lets put on a toll for private vehicles and trucks which can help pay for the costs of setting it up.
Development on the harbour lands should include housing for multiple income levels modelled on a new development in downtown East Vancouver and Regent Park in Toronto.
Murray
Bill
Murray thanks for this . Yes the best win in the rail cut will be to accelerate commute times on public transit.
Land development should include space for commercial , residential , and public spaces.
Bll
Don Mills
It would be useful to review the report commissioned by the Greater Halifax Partnership in 1995 regarding the port by the transportaion specialist consulting company Booz Allen which recommended consolidation of the terminals.
Doug Hall
While I agree strongly with the idea of using the Cut (and I live in the South End near it), providing yet another conduit for cars to access the downtown is shortsighted.
A more palatable idea is to create a road surface in the Cut, using the second track that has been removed. During the early commute, only buses would use the corridor – all in-bound. After that, trucks accessing the container port would enter and leave based on railway-type scheduling, say, rotating in and out traffic every 1/2 hour. All bus and truck traffic would be constrained to slow speeds, for safety and to minimize noise.
In the evening, buses would again take over the corridor for the commute, then back to trucks again.
Meanwhile, trains would continue to use the track as today.
To complement this, commuter parking areas would be built at the end of the Cut, or in accessible areas, so people can leave their vehicles outside the core.
By restraining vehicle speeds, no major expenditures in the Cut would be needed. By providing commuters with an enticing alternative, fewer cars would clog up the downtown.
Bill
Doug thanks for the comment. Your idea is better than the statusquo, although quite unworkable for trucks. they are coming and going all the time.
But in your formulation we would not take advantage that the space represents.
Bill
Don Dougherty
I live by the rail cut in the South End. When my property value plummets, and when I attempt to sell my house, immediately after any news of installing a highway next to my home, am I going to be compensated for the dramatic loss in value?
Don Dougherty
Here are some ideas to ease traffic congestion… (I don’t expect any to be implemented, because commuters always do what’s best for them alone.)
1. Car pooling. (About 75% of vehicles have only the driver in the vehicle.)
2. Restrict student parking at the universities. As part of student fees, every student at SMU has a bus pass. Why should an 18-year old freshman expect to drive alone to school?
3. Relocate some government departments to outside the peninsula. (Have you been to Canada Revenue Agency lately? You now communicate only by phone, and most of the employees live outside of the downtown core. So they drive in to work at a booth, and most never deal directly with the public, and then they drive home. That’s a waste.)
4. Stagger work times.
5. If people don’t like to wait in traffic at 8am, leave earlier, go to a local gym, and get in shape instead of being a couch potato.
6. COMMUTER RAIL. This is the best alternative for everyone concerned.
Don Dougherty
And Bill, why don’t you start using some good current critical thinking skills (like systems-approach thinking) before you start throwing out outdated ideas.
When dinosaur ideas like yours, thought out with a 1980s’ mind-set, finally are replaced by 2010 ideas, we might finally get a better city.
Bill, cars will soon not be the ‘kings’ anymore.
Bill
Don the posting suggests a number of measures to alleviate the impact on adjacent home owners . Please note that we are talking about a 50 km/hr city street , not the Gardiner Expressway.
Secondly the proposal is that a full engineering and cost study be done. This should include an assessment of impact on homeowners and a recommendation on whether compensation is appropriate.
Bill
Don Dougherty
Bill,
I’m guessing that you don’t live near the rail cut, and would not be affected negatively by your proposal.
Converting the rail cut to another Robie Street will impact more than just those homes directly adjacent to the rail cut. Perhaps 1,000s of homes would be impacted, not a mere 100 homes as you suggest. (My son studies ‘acoustics’. He told me that the noise reverberation would be amplified in the rail cut.)
You comment, “Please note that we are talking about a 50 km/hr city street , not the Gardiner Expressway.”
I have relatives who live on Robie Street. The noise and pollution level is far greater there than on my street. Also, you can be sure that many drivers would exceed the 50km.hr speed limit.
When a homeowner buys a home in Hammonds Plains, they are/should be aware of the traffic issues before purchasing the home. They implicitly accept the traffic problems. When we purchased our home, studies had already been completed suggesting that the use of the rail cut for vehicles was NOT viable. Do you think that it is fair to solve your commuting woes by shifting the traffic problem to me? I certainly don’t, especially when there are viable solutions which you appear to ignore.
The commuters that you are attempting to help can collectively ease the burden of heavy traffic, but they refuse to do so. Again, as I have stated in previous comment, car pooling should ease the traffic congestion. (But commuters refuse to car pool.)
In your article, you also state that commutes in a city of 400,000 should not take the time that they presently take. You really can’t compare Halifax to most other cities of similar size. (Your comparing “apples to oranges”.) I believe that Halifax was originally planned with ‘protection’ in mind, rather than daily commutes. That’s why the town was built by the water on a peninusla. As a result of its location, it’s not conducive to easy commutes. Also, I’m not aware of any city in the world that has its most expensive real estate located next to train tracks.
Rail is the environmentally-friendly transportation mode of the future. The rail cut can support a commuter rail link, and is a viable option.
Opening up another link into downtown Halifax will just encourage more traffic, not less.
Bill, we want to discourage use of cars, not promote the use of cars.
Again, RAIL is the way to go.
Bill
Don I neither live near the rail cut nor do I commute from outside the peninsula. Any substantial change to transportation infrastructure has implications pro and con for different people. There are thousands of people who live on the truck routes who would benefit from this proposal, and tens of thousands for whom commuter rail would not be relevant–think about Tantallon,Cowie Hill, Herring Cove, Prospect, the South Shore etc.
Government has to weigh all these pros and cons in reaching an informed conclusion.
Bill
Don Dougherty
Bill,
No, I didn’t think that you lived near the rail cut. You would be singing from a different hymn sheet if you did.
You are aware that this issue has been studied ‘to death’, aren’t you?
You state, “There are thousands of people who live on the truck routes who would benefit from this proposal”. Once again, when those people purchased their condos on Hollis Street, they were fully aware of the traffic issue. Those people chose to live there. Shifting their problem to my neighbourhood is blatantly unfair. And, by the way, it’s not a case of NIMB, but IIMBAIWTMITYB (It’s In My Backyard And I Want To Move It To Your Backyard).
There are better solutions to your issues than simply RUINING my and other’s neighbourhood. (The West End would be affected as well.)
It’s a rail cut, and should remain as such.
Brian Loughnan
Bill,
Your rambling piece in the chronicle Herald concerning yet another attempt to use the rail cut for something other than a rail line showed a total lack of understanding of the impact on westend neighbourhoods. The rail line emerges form the cut at Roosevelt Drive and soon runs at and above the levels of the adjacent houses and crosses above Chebucto Road. This is already a very congested area with the Armdale roundabout and its feeder roads and you would propose an access to the railline at this point! Are you mad? I purchased my home here on Roosevelt drive 38 years ago at a time when the railway was busy including the use of dayliners. We bought here fully cognizant of the rail traffic. In like manner, the people on Lower Water St and its environs were fully aware of the traffic from the container pier. We have a rail line which has been permitted to deteriorate by CN and its masters in Montreal. While many countries of the world are developing their rail systems, we in Canada can not see beyond the “golden triangle”. Even President Obama has recognised the need to improve rail systems.
Rail travel is the answer, a look at light rail systems and the commuter day liner option is the way to go. Reduce truck traffic by moving containers by rail, as they should be. Let’s not hear anymore grandiose ideas of using the rail cut for anything other than rail traffic.
Brian Loughnan
Craig Bobbitt
Don….your ideas will turn downtown Halifax into wasteland….no one will live there except you and your neighbours on your quiet street …and when your jobs move out to the former county…will you want to drive on my roads then?…..the land occupied by the container terminal and the grain terminals should be used by all Nova Scotians and would enhance the lives of us all and the rail cut is the most sensible/ cheapest way to access the dowtown core….regards
Don Dougherty
Brian,
Thank you for your rational and articulate comments.
When will people realize that train travel is the travel mode of the future, and much more environmentally sensible?
Apparently, trains can carry the same amount of freight as trucks, but using only 58% the energy.
Also, a bit of contrarian thinking is in order to solve the traffic woes. Perhaps traffic authorities should make it more DIFFICULT to commute in order to get people out of their cars. If we proceeded to make it very easy to commute, the volume of traffic would probably increase, causing more congestion downtown (with no place to park).
And a message to Craig… You’re assuming that turning Halifax into a little ‘Singapore’ will save us all. I don’t necessarily think that just by developing the south end container terminal area, it will be the catalyst for retaining young people or revitalizing Halifax. What new ‘professional’ type jobs will be created? More people working at Tim Horton’s?
Mike Hollihan
I’ve been an advocate for years – clean up the south end waterfront and move all the facilities elseware. My preference for Halterm would be shearwater – run a rail around the back of Dartmouth connecting AutoPort with Elmsdale thereby eliminating rail tracks in Dartmouth which would allow major development on the Dartmouth side. The railway station could move to Fairview of Beford – Make the 102 a toll road from Fairview to the Weston. Suggest you form a High Profile committee and obtain ACOA funding for a comporison study of the benefits. Who knows maybe members of the committee may make good councillors someday.
Good Luck
Mike Hollihan
Kyle
I live downtown, and walk to school and work. I think this is a terrible idea, even though it would probably improve the commute for some people.
People choose to live in Dartmouth/Hammonds Plains/Tantallon/Sackville etc. People choose to do this to live in larger houses, with larger lots, more privacy, etc .
They choose to do this knowing full well that they have to commute to the Peninsula, and that this commute takes up a portion of their day that may be used more effectively. Yes, real estate on the Peninsula is more expensive, and you may not receive as much space. But, you do gain access to better transit and the ability to walk to the vast majority of services one would need, usually without a car. This major savings (gas, financing, parking, insurance, and time) more than makes up for the difference in housing costs in my case anyway.
Life is full of choices, but accommodating bad choices (less people exercising, more people driving and polluting the environment, and more people living farther away and wasting time) is, IMO, not a good idea.
Mike Murphy
Commuter rail takes commuters off of the streets on to dedicated track that has a much higher average and peak speed than is possible on any street or highway (40-80 km/hr), regardless of whether priority signalling is used for buses or not. Commuter rail would not be so hard to keep running during winter storms, unlike the buses.
Light rail vehicles can carry much higher passenger volumes than other modes of transport. If run in streets, light rail systems are limited by city block lengths to about four 180-passenger vehicles (720 passengers). Operating on 2 minute headways using traffic signal progression, a well-designed system can handle more than 30 trains per hour, achieving peak rates of over 20,000 passengers per hour per track. More advanced systems with separate rights-of-way using moving block signaling can exceed 25,000 passengers per hour per track.
This is in stark contrast to roads that have capacity limits that have been determined by traffic engineers. Due to traffic congestion they experience a chaotic breakdown in flow and a dramatic drop in speed if they exceed about 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. Since automobiles in many places average only 1.2 passengers during rush hour, this limits roads to about 2,400 passengers per hour per lane.
Light rail systems can carry as many passengers as a 16-lane freeway in the space of a two lane roadway.
Commuter rail construction costs around $15 million a kilometre and that seems to be the reason Halifax City Council is looking at other options instead. Can’t the city take out a loan to fund a portion of the system? Isn’t that what other cities have to do? Isn’t there Federal and Provincial money for transit projects? There was certainly a lot of money on the table for the Commonwealth Games, upwards of $1 billion. Wouldn’t a portion of that money be better spent on a larger scale transit system, designed with the future and the environment in mind?
Rail lines already exist from near the Angus L. Macdonald bridge on Barrington, all the way up the harbour past Bedford to the airport. This could easily be extended down to the Cogswell St. interchange area, and a proper transit hub could be set up since they plan on tearing it down anyway. We could have a transfer to buses and the ferry and integrate with Scotia Square, Purdy’s Wharf, Barrington Place and beyond with the existing pedway system.
The rail lines along the cut (from the VIA rail station through the South End and along the Northwest Arm) have been reduced to one track, and CN freight traffic will quite often queue up for hours waiting to unload or load, whichever the case may be. Indeed though the cut is still there, and could be used as a rail corridor at some point in time, as long as we were willing to lay some new track. The last thing we should be looking to is to pave more land for trucks which from an environmental standpoint at the very least, are about 1/100th as efficient as rail for the transport of goods.
With commuter rail we would have a solid backbone for our transit system. We would have a showpiece of our progressive attitudes. We’d have an efficient, clean, modern transit solution that will enable more population growth without the traffic we would otherwise have to suffer. They are almost always wheelchair accessible! Something the buses can feed into and out of, instead of being the only leg our system has to stand on. We could get really progressive as a city and partner with the provincial and federal government like the Farmer’s Market did, build a few wind turbines and power the whole system with green energy. That’s what Calgary does.
Calgary and Edmonton both were about Halifax’s size now, when they embarked on their own LRT systems in the early 80s, and today they both showpieces for what a modern rail system can be.
Calgary’s LRT system in particular gets almost 200,000 riders per day. That’s not including bus travel! It is actually profitable!
Some of the pieces are in place. All we need is a vision and to get all levels of government on side.
HALIFAX NEEDS RAIL TRANSIT!
Rick Dunbrack
Why not use a commutter train or the old dayliner system
Don Dougherty
Thank you, Mike Murphy, for your persuasive argument for a commuter rail system.
Commuter rail is the transportation mode of the future. Hopefully, HRM will finally realize this.
Jane MacKay
If a gondola can be built from Whistler Mountain to Blackcombe I am sure one can be built across the North West Arm on which pedestrians or cyclists could connect with the university and hospital sector of the peninsula. Other parts of the world are doing it.
As for container port land use… an acquarium for north atlantic marine species; a dry land exhibit of one of the submarines that has been tied up under the MacDonald bridge for years. Less expensive if it was striped and had the ends cut off so it was more like a giant climbing apparatus? Actually I picture this on the Dartmouth side in the rail yard you refer to. I would like Halifax Harbour to have a floating ampha theater barge that could be anchored in three or four sites– Point Pleasant, Dartnouth, Bedford…, We need to make use of our uniqueness as a Harbour City and anything we do should contribute to the “destination” designation that will enhance our marketability. I do not favour another brigde from Dartmouth; fix the bike exit from the Halifax side of the bridge! Even I would bike from Dartmouth to visit family in Halifax if I didn’t have to go donw to the bottom of the hilll on the Halifax side.
Cheers, Jane MK
Ben Wedge
My concern with the idea of removing the rail line from the cut lies with the planning atrocity that occurred in Ontario in the 1960s. Train stations in cities like Ottawa and Kingston are now far from the downtown, removing their key advantage over airports – location. European cities generally have train stations within the downtown core, as do Toronto, New York, and other large cities. Moving Halifax’s train station out of the downtown core would further diminish the relevance of trains, a mode of transport that will hopefully start to see a resurgence in coming years. They are the cleanest mode of land transportation, cheap to operate, and currently carry the majority of North American freight. Hopefully both passenger and freight trains will see a resurgence in Halifax, but any plan to tear up the rail cut should include a proposal for building a train station as close as possible to Scotia Square.
A further point to where I think the $37M should go is this: (I believe I brought this up the last time I contacted you) the money should be spent moving the container capacity for Fairview Cove, and upgrading the rail lines connecting Halifax (Fairview, not the South End), Montreal, and Boston. A twinned, welded-joint line would be an expensive upgrade, but would increase reliability and decrease the time to move cargo to the middle of the continent by several hours, in an industry where every second counts.
When a car can go from the Westin to Truro in roughly an hour, a train that takes two hours will never compete. Trains should be able to do the run in under 45 minutes, including stops in Bedford, Sackville, Fall River, Enfield, and maybe a few other spots. Not having a twinned line wreaks havoc on the schedules, and trains are operating way below their optimum speeds, thereby wasting fuel, and once again, time.
Sure, a twinned line would be more than what is needed to handle current capacity, but to improve passenger service, and long-term planning, this may be what’s needed. I’d like to see a study on this.
Bill
Ben thanks for your thoughts. You are right to argue that any train solution has to include a station in the downtown core. Perhaps abetter way of getting there would be via the tracks coming in from Bedford Basin .
Bill
PS
The other day I heard a story that really was interesting. First, apparently there are whole lot of rail cars being refurbished in New Brunswick . Some might be the older rail liners ,but if not that there are a lot of rail liners available in the USA. The other part of the story that connected to the Trenton car works and how Peter Mackay got out gunned by Quebec and VIA rail as they wanted that rail car business to die in NS so they could keep as much as possible in Quebec or at least it’s subsidiary province of NB . Anyway, the rest of the story was that there are rail lines right to the dockyard coming in from the other side of Halifax and all the way to Woodside on the Dartmouth side, so all of these are “options” as clearly there is a group who are opposing any use of the “cut”.
We need a “consortium” here as if we wait for government , it’ll never happen. Who do we have that has the knowledge to argue the economics of trains ? Warren Buffett is too busy buying up more trains . Let’s get a line as far as the Fairview container pier area at least and argue about getting into the core later . Or maybe to the ferry in Dartmouth as that is the one spot where a rail line is closest to both ferry and then downtown . No worse than flying into Toronto Island.
Bill
Thanks for this.The idea of train to Dartmouth ferry and then across is intriguing. It is certainly the easiest to implement (tracks are right there already as is the infrastructure for a station) but the total transit time needs to be checked.
Bill
PS
The real problem here is that the likely users of a rail system are just not being that vocal. There are something like 15-20 “shuttles” a day travelling to Halifax every day from Cape Breton, PEI and the Valley. Acadi”e”n Lines is starting to back out of some routes. The vast number of people coming to work in Halifax are coming from many locations near existing rail lines. When you compare Metro transit to the City of Victoria transit, what a difference. In Victoria you can travel on a double decker 35 kms out of the city; these are equipped for wheel chair access, even have video surveillance on both decks. Metro still can’t get you the airport . Is there anyone aware of any proposals made to have passenger rail in a sitution like we have here that we could tap into? By the way , the Ottawa train station is linked to a highway system that is solely used by the buses and emergency vehicles in Ottawa ( and to sneak the odd VIP around) , a system that runs the whole width of the city .
Catherine
I live in Clayton Park (B3M) and it takes me nearly an hour to get downtown from my house. We have a rush hour bus but this does not help me as I normally do not travel during peak times. My friends will not visit my home because of this long travel time, I am forced to always be the one who goes to them.
I would like to see a inexpensive commuter train service set up to take us from the suburbs into downtown. In addition we would benefit from more direct bus routes, I do not need to take a scenic tour of fairview everytime I go downtown. Another thing that would greatly assist us bus riders is if the buses actually connected, too many times my bus is just pulling up to the terminal when all of the other buses pull away. This results in a long delay between connections.
Carol
I believe we would be better off to get local train service in the cut, from probably Truro, 2 or 3xdaily in each direction. We need to get rid of the number of cars. Even the Americans are beginning to see the value of commuter trains.
Peggy Chisholm
Well, this is a site I was very happy to be told about. I just scanned through the posts, so forgive me if I just repeat someone else’s points.
I will be picking up a friend at the train terminal in Halifax in a few weeks. She is coming from Ontario by train. I live in Wellington, so we hear the train whistle out here and it’s rather charming. I started to think, “wouldn’t it be great if we could get on that train at a stop out here somewhere and go downtown to work or just to stroll around?” I’m glad to see that so many people have thought along the same line.
In my life time(I’m not too old yet, so there is hope for this!) I would love to get on a commuter train out here, get off in Halifax on a beautiful summer evening, and walk up to Spring Garden Road, dine, stroll, drink, and be merry, then head back home again on the train. Oh, yeah, and Spring garden will be closed to traffic. That would be cool.
Bill
Thanks Peggy. You paint a nice picture. The best chance for commuter rail is coming in on the other side of the peninsula, below Barrington Street. Either direction requires an extension of tracks to get downtown. I have not been able to make argue for it because of the large capital costs and the lack of population clusters near which to put stations. But that is not to say that a case cannot be made.