HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2025, 11:42 AM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,212
Article about the rail cut

Interesting little article about the history of the rail cut, talking to the author of a book just released.

The title of the article is strange, as it's not really a true statement and it belies the purpose of the book. Regardless, it would be nice if we could take on projects of this magnitude with regard to things like modern transit for Halifax.

Halifax's rail cut: The century-old project that ruins your daily commute
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2025, 1:10 PM
Saul Goode Saul Goode is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
The title of the article is strange, as it's not really a true statement and it belies the purpose of the book.
Agreed - the title and premise of the article are silly, if not downright obtuse, though the content was fascinating.

Also agreed: why can't we take on grand projects anymore?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2025, 1:44 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,760
What is even more interesting is why there was no mention at all of past usage and the importance of it then, any proposals/opportunities to utilize it more the the benefit of other groups in the broader community besides the port, and how the control of it fell into the hands of a private company, CN.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2025, 2:17 PM
Saul Goode Saul Goode is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
What is even more interesting is why there was no mention at all of past usage and the importance of it then, any proposals/opportunities to utilize it more the the benefit of other groups in the broader community besides the port, and how the control of it fell into the hands of a private company, CN.
What are you thinking, Keith? That would have required real reporting. Sheesh.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2025, 5:21 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,194
There are a number of issues with using the rail cut as a commuter corridor. Currently, there is only one rail line and it seems that any shared agreement for usage would be difficult. Another issue is the height of the bridges being too low to have an elevated street or rail line above the current rail bed. One solution, albeit expensive, would be to use the rail cut as a base for a monorail / LRT support structure, similar to the Toronto Pearson monorail and Montreal’s South Shore Metro. The two-track monorail / LRT would be elevated above the current bridges so the clearance would be controlled above the bridge decks. Likely a bigger outcry than when they blasted out the rail cut?

Toronto - Pearson:
https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-p...son-airport-cruises-news-photo/165451235

Montreal South Shore Metro:
https://railway-news.com/montreal-final-testing-underway-on-rem-south-shore-metro/
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2025, 12:53 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,760
^^^ For the last 150 years there has been no shortage of reasons why things could not be done in Halifax. That in turn explains why things have never been done. Imagine if this attitude was employed in cities like New York or Paris.

An Act of Parliament could have ownership of the rail cut revert back to government. That would then allow uses of the thing for the public good to be explored. Back in the day when passenger rail was still viable it was used for exactly those reasons. Now it is a very underutilized asset that benefits just one entity. Arguments why alternative uses could not possibly be done all come back to one reason only: a lack of will. The fact that those possibilities have never been seriously explored epitomizes the Halifax way. Time to change that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2025, 5:17 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,212
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2025, 5:30 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 40,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
^^^ For the last 150 years there has been no shortage of reasons why things could not be done in Halifax. That in turn explains why things have never been done. Imagine if this attitude was employed in cities like New York or Paris.

An Act of Parliament could have ownership of the rail cut revert back to government. That would then allow uses of the thing for the public good to be explored. Back in the day when passenger rail was still viable it was used for exactly those reasons. Now it is a very underutilized asset that benefits just one entity. Arguments why alternative uses could not possibly be done all come back to one reason only: a lack of will. The fact that those possibilities have never been seriously explored epitomizes the Halifax way. Time to change that.
1000%

You need a strong government willing to make difficult (and/or) expensive decisions for the public good.

The rail cut should not be exclusively a playground for CNR. I wonder if triple tracking is possible in the cut? Even if not, it might be worthwhile to think about widening the cut by a few feet and redoing some of the bridges over the cut. Triple tracking would allow for two way commuter rail and unimpeded usage by CNR for container traffic.

Potentially expensive, yes, but, an elegant solution.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2025, 6:32 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
There are a number of issues with using the rail cut as a commuter corridor. Currently, there is only one rail line and it seems that any shared agreement for usage would be difficult. Another issue is the height of the bridges being too low to have an elevated street or rail line above the current rail bed. One solution, albeit expensive, would be to use the rail cut as a base for a monorail / LRT support structure, similar to the Toronto Pearson monorail and Montreal’s South Shore Metro. The two-track monorail / LRT would be elevated above the current bridges so the clearance would be controlled above the bridge decks. Likely a bigger outcry than when they blasted out the rail cut?

Toronto - Pearson:
https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-p...son-airport-cruises-news-photo/165451235

Montreal South Shore Metro:
https://railway-news.com/montreal-final-testing-underway-on-rem-south-shore-metro/
To be clear, although I would like to see what more potential we can wring out of the rail cut, my comments about taking on large projects in terms of transit are not limited by the rail cut. We should be looking at doing whatever it takes to bring us into the future. If it involves sections of elevated or underground LRT to get through restrictive areas, then let’s do it. If it involves a third crossing, then that needs to be figured into the plan. It will be expensive and have some degree of pain and inconvenience associated with it, but frankly it’s tiring to hear that “we can’t” for some reason or another, while we passively slip into a future of complaining and in-fighting. We have to be better than this, and IMHO it’s time to get our noses out of the phone and off social media, and just get something substantial done that will benefit all in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2025, 8:43 PM
Arrdeeharharharbour Arrdeeharharharbour is offline
Cap the Cut!
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,049
If we were to cap the cut we'd have more land than we need to run surface rail for LRT. I'll post a screen capture below which very roughly illustrates a possibility. Please excuse my drawing ability. Note on the pic that the tracks head out the 102 which is soon to be widened anyway. Note that the tracks head towards the MacKay which is about to be replaced anyway. Note that the blue line is a Robie St. streetcar route and the red line is a downtown street car route. Also, in orange, is the 102 to the MacKay gap filler and a section of new highway from Herring Cove Rd. to the 102 utilizing the newly capped land area and with no access to the Armdale circle. Though I haven't included any, there are some pretty obvious places for stops/stations for transfers to other transportation modes and high volume locations.

CapTheCut1 by A.J. Forsythe, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2025, 9:00 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour View Post
If we were to cap the cut we'd have more land than we need to run surface rail for LRT. I'll post a screen capture below which very roughly illustrates a possibility. Please excuse my drawing ability. Note on the pic that the tracks head out the 102 which is soon to be widened anyway. Note that the tracks head towards the MacKay which is about to be replaced anyway. Note that the blue line is a Robie St. streetcar route and the red line is a downtown street car route. Also, in orange, is the 102 to the MacKay gap filler and a section of new highway from Herring Cove Rd. to the 102 utilizing the newly capped land area and with no access to the Armdale circle. Though I haven't included any, there are some pretty obvious places for stops/stations for transfers to other transportation modes and high volume locations.

CapTheCut1 by A.J. Forsythe, on Flickr
If you cap the cut to run surface rail there would be 15 intersections as there are 15 bridges. If the track were elevated above the bridges, the run would be uninterrupted from Fairview Cove to the train station.
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2025, 9:23 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,212
Every time I have thought about this thread, “cap the cut” kept playing in my mind. That would be a very catchy slogan if it were ever to become reality!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2025, 10:00 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,656
The rail line was designed to serve the port and is a poor route for LRT. It would be marginal but maybe okay for commuter rail.

The rail cut itself is a nice piece of infrastructure. It is a port city and the port needs a freight connection. Putting the rail line in a trench eliminated at-grade connections and there are a lot of bridges. I don't think the spin about it ruining commutes makes much sense. It's more that no improvements have been made to these roadways in many decades because the city's so paralyzed today, not that they made poor decisions in the early 1900s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2025, 11:06 PM
Antigonish Antigonish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home sweet home
Posts: 832
If cost wasn't an option (it is) I'd rather see a push to move the port across the harbour to the site of the old imperoyal site that seems pretty much abandoned. The most bare bones area tool on google says it's like 150ha of land, much larger that the existing port facility.

From that, you run the rail line on the old ROW that wraps around Shearwater then north behind Cole Harbour and sort of through parts of Cherry Brook and wrapping it around/above the 118/107 interchange area, sort of like a viaduct to connect it to the existing rail line behind Burnside.

If that can happen then the rail cut can be appropriated from the Fairview Terminal all the way to the main port terminal. Moving the site would open up billions in expensive real estate to offset a lot of the infrastructure costs. It also opens up an option to build a 3rd crossing (tunnel) under the harbour that connects to the beginning of the Circ on the Dartmouth side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2025, 12:38 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,760
There are all kinds of potential options. There is absolutely zero will to attempt any of them.

Over the weekend I happened to watch a Steve Marsh tourist video about him and his partner visiting Bilbao, a beautiful city with about 370,000 permanent residents. The infrastructure and public amenities are mind-blowing for a city roughly the same size as ours.

Last edited by Keith P.; Dec 31, 2025 at 1:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2025, 12:28 PM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 544
Mr. Chaulk’s book was on my year-end reading list. The title, Railroaded: The Untold History of Halifax's Rail Cut, is a bit misleading, in my estimation. Chaulk tells the story of the creation of the Halifax Ocean Terminals, a massive project that took years to complete (arguably, it has never been “completed”), cost probably a couple of billion in today’s dollars, displaced hundreds of people and changed the face of the city forever. The rail cut was an integral part, but only part, of the story. Together with the Explosion, the Ocean Terminals project was probably the most impactful event in the city’s history. While I’d quibble with the claim that its story is “untold,” there’s no doubt most Haligonians are unaware of its significance, even as they navigate around it on their daily commutes.

Chaulk clearly sympathizes with the “naysayers,” the vocal minority who spoke out against the project when it was announced in the fall of 1912. They included about a third of city council, some municipal officials, including city solicitor F.H. Bell, and the Liberal-aligned Morning Chronicle, whose editorial writers derided the project as “vandalism.” Chaulk opines that the creation of the Ocean Terminals led “to the disappearance of one of the most scenic parts of the peninsula. …We still cope with it today, and it has grown bigger and uglier over time.”

There’s no doubt, as the author documents, that Robert Borden’s Conservative government – Borden was also the MP for Halifax -- drove the project through without meaningful consultation with citizens or the city, that the expropriation process was unfair and that contractors gave little regard to trifles like safe blasting practices. But it is also clear that it was well supported by business and civic leaders, even as some of their own properties were threatened or devalued by the construction.

Chaulk doesn't offer a realistic alternative. Doing nothing was not an option. Sitting on the shore of one world’s greatest natural harbours, Halifax was stagnating in the early 20th century. The marine facilities were crowded into the narrow strip of shoreline between Cornwallis Street to the south and Richmond to the north, jammed together with the naval dockyard, major industry and rail works. A commission led by Frederick Cowie examined four possible alternatives. One involved relocating the naval dockyard, a non-starter with the feds and with the British Navy, which retained rights. Two schemes involved relocating the docks to the Dartmouth side, either at Tufts Cove or Eastern Passage. Both would be disruptive, considering the business was mostly on the Halifax side and moving people and goods across the harbour or around the basin would be inefficient and costly. The advantages of locating in the south end, nearer to the mouth of the harbour, are undeniable.

Chaulk documents the human cost of the development, identifying the 238 property owners who were compensated for the expropriation of their properties and naming the streets that disappeared or were truncated by the work. While many of the properties lost were modest working-class homes, a number were grand historic structures. Notable among these was the Oaklands estate, built by William Cunard, second son of the steamship mogul. The president of the Board of Trade swooped in to buy it from its then-owner for the princely sum of $1250. While contractors were attempting to move it on the night of Dec. 28, 1914, the building somehow caught fire and was destroyed. All that remains are the original estate gates and former gatehouse at 1124 Robie Street.


The lost Oaklands estate house. Source: Old black and white pictures of Halifax on Facebook

The book does shine light on one mystery that long perplexed me, the dead end of Robie Street’s grand south-end boulevard, and the abrupt termination at Jubilee Road of the Connaught Avenue boulevard. Chaulk reveals that the original plan had Connaught continuing along the broad curve of the rail cut until it intersected with Robie. Robie was to bridge the rail cut and join with Francklyn on the other side. Why the works were never completed is unclear, although it’s probably not unreasonable to suppose that toney residents of Marlborough Woods, Maplewood and area were unenthusiastic about having a major thoroughfare dump commuters into their neighbourhoods.


Excerpt of c 1930 map showing Connaught Avenue intersecting with Oxford Street and Robie Street. Missing is the proposed bridge between Robie and Francklyn Streets.
Source: Bob Chaulk, Railroaded: The untold story of Halifax's rail cut (Nimbus, 2025)

While the author gripes about the inconvenience of navigating the rail cut’s 15 bridges and the noise of passing trains, he gives little acknowledgement to the impact of the Ocean Terminals to Halifax and to the nation. It is impossible to overstate the importance of this infrastructure to Canada during World War II alone for the transport of goods, military materiel and people, including troops. That said, Chaulk’s book is well worth reading for anyone interested in the historical perspective on planning and development in Halifax.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2025, 12:47 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,760
I used to know the then-owner of that house on Robie St that is pictured. I remember him telling me how the gates were relocated there from another estate decades before. Interesting that all images of it on Street View have the entrance and gates blurred out.

Also interesting that the Old Halifax Pictures group cited on Facebook is continually blocked from access. I thought I was already a member of it. Curious.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2025, 2:25 PM
Arrdeeharharharbour Arrdeeharharharbour is offline
Cap the Cut!
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
If you cap the cut to run surface rail there would be 15 intersections as there are 15 bridges. If the track were elevated above the bridges, the run would be uninterrupted from Fairview Cove to the train station.
I hear your saying but I do believe that the cut is deep enough to allow for double stacked rail below and dips and rises to allow car traffic under or over LRT without conflict. No doubt that there would be some complex engineering required. Big advantages to using this route include the cut already being there and most if not all proposed on my map could be done without having to demolish homes...other than the ones along Robie that are already to be demolished. Also, capping might just mean spanning the cut with sufficient structure to support LRT tracks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2025, 2:52 PM
Arrdeeharharharbour Arrdeeharharharbour is offline
Cap the Cut!
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,049
The wooded area at the south end of Robie could turn out to be quite useful. Here we find a bit of a natural intersection of SMU, Point Pleasant Park, a potential AT bridge over the NWA, a potential Robie St. streetcar and the rail cut.

CapTheCut2 by A.J. Forsythe, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2025, 2:53 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour View Post
I hear your saying but I do believe that the cut is deep enough to allow for double stacked rail below and dips and rises to allow car traffic under or over LRT without conflict. No doubt that there would be some complex engineering required. Big advantages to using this route include the cut already being there and most if not all proposed on my map could be done without having to demolish homes...other than the ones along Robie that are already to be demolished. Also, capping might just mean spanning the cut with sufficient structure to support LRT tracks.
If there is enough height under the bridges to accommodate an evevated double track above the railbed, that would be ideal. If a couple of bridges were not high enough, they could be rebuilt to suit.
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:21 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.