Inlandterminalfinalreport

Final Report
Halifax Inland Terminal and Trucking Options Study

Presented to
Halifax Regional Municipality
and
Halifax Port Authority
by
©MariNova Consulting Ltd.
January 2006
Halifax Inland Terminal and Trucking Options Study i
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ii
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Current Situation 5
3.0 Best Practices 10
4.0 Vision for New Inland Terminal (NIT) 18
5.0 NIT Site Selection 23
6.0 NIT Concept 52
7.0 Shuttle Operations 65
8.0 The Railway Cut Truckway 75
9.0 Economic Analysis 82
10.0 Stakeholder Consultations 108
11.0 Value Added Opportunities 111
12.0 Value Proposition 114
13.0 Conclusions 115
Appendices
A Milford Rail Shuttle Analysis
B Construction Estimate for New Inland Terminal (NIT)
C Economic Analysis Models
Current Costs
Capacity Analysis
When to Build
NPV Analysis
D Photos
©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

Halifax Inland Terminal and Trucking Options Study ii
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction
The Halifax Port Authority (HPA) and Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM)
commissioned the present study to evaluate the role that an Inland Terminal or truck
access to the railcut through the Halifax peninsula could play in alleviating some of the
challenges presented by trucking activity within HRM.
The study includes a site selection evaluation for a terminal to be located within Nova
Scotia, an operational analysis of the inland terminal concept and an economic analysis
of an inland terminal, as well as an assessment of the feasibility of the railcut option.
2.0 Current Situation
In 2004 the Port handled about 525,000 TEUs of intermodal cargo. The same year,
approximately 25,000 intermodal units were handled through the Halifax Intermodal
Terminal (HIT). Overall, the number of trucks calling at all of the intermodal terminals in
the city averages 343 trucks (686 one way) per normal business day.
The estimated practical port capacity of the existing terminals in Halifax is 800,000 to
900,000 TEUs per year. The existing terminals, in effect, act as inland terminals and
empty storage yards for local cargo within trucking distance of Halifax.
3.0 Best Practices
Three other ports – Auckland, Vancouver and New Orleans – were examined, and there
are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from their experience:
1) Chronic congestion is required somewhere in the existing system to make it
work.
2) An inland terminal appears to achieve better asset utilization for both ports and
truckers.
3) Shippers get better and quicker access to cargo. They avoid long queues getting
into container terminals and highway congestion getting to and from the terminal.
4) It helps to have the port and other partners invest in the project.
4.0 Vision for New Inland Terminal (NIT)
All truck-related activities presently carried out at HIT and at the port’s container
terminals would be relocated to the New Inland Terminal (NIT) that would serve local
and regional container markets. A NIT would free up land presently used for empty
storage, truck marshalling, gate processing and truck roadways on the existing
terminals, thus increasing port capacity by as much as 250,000 TEUs, and postponing
the need for a third container terminal.
The NIT would become an expansion of the port terminals, but on property that is
substantially less expensive to develop compared to waterfront areas. It would also be

Halifax Inland Terminal and Trucking Options Study iii
located to provide ancillary business opportunities, particularly related to distribution and

transload activities.
The NIT would connect operationally with the port terminals by using dedicated rail
shuttles. Sufficient captive rail cars would be used to ensure that at least 95% of import
containers destined for the local market, as well as repositioned empties, would be
handled directly from ship to rail.
5.0 NIT Site Selection
In order to determine the best site, a site characteristics model with 35 parameters was
employed. The sites studied were HIT, Rockingham, Rocky Lake, Oakfield, Milford
Station, and Debert. They scored as follows:
Sites considered
Guiding Compatible Shuttle
Site Principles Size Expansion Topography Neighbours Distance
H.I.T. No Insufficient Major Cost Good Yes OK
Rockingham No Expensive fill Major Cost Good Mitigation OK
Rocky Lake Yes More Quarrying Nearby Good Mostly OK
Oakfield Yes Insufficient Insufficient Unacceptable Mitgation Fair
Lantz Yes Marginal length Nearby Flood plain Mitgation Marginal
Milford Station Yes Sufficient Nearby Acceptable Mostly Marginal
Debert Yes Ample Good Good Yes Too Far
Legend
NO GO Issue
Issues
No Issue
The study recommended that both Milford Station and Rocky Lake be short-listed. Upon
further evaluation of the capital and operating costs and benefits of these two sites, it
was recommended that Rocky Lake be selected for conceptual design and closer
analysis.
6.0 NIT Design
The NIT is configured to follow the shoreline of Rocky Lake to take advantage of the
level grade and existing quarried areas to minimize the amount of rock excavation
required. Further development of this site could allow the CN mainline and NIT to be
more efficiently linked to the Dartmouth branch.
7.0 Shuttle Operation
The rail shuttle has two basic purposes:
1. Conveyance of locally-destined import containers from the port terminals to NIT.

2. Conveyance of locally produced export containers from NIT to the port terminals.
The proximity of Rocky Lake to the port allows enough flexibility to handle the service
requirements at a reasonable cost. Over the long term, the shuttle costs should remain
relatively constant as port volumes increase. The peaks should fill in, making better use

Halifax Inland Terminal and Trucking Options Study iv
of the dedicated railcar fleet. Longer shuttle trains will only incrementally add line haul
costs. Thus, the shuttle will become increasingly cost effective per unit moved as
volumes grow.
8.0 The Railway Cut Truckway
The Railway Cut, linking the Bayers Road/Bi-High entrance and the South End
Terminals, can be looked upon as an underutilized transportation resource within HRM.
However, CN has determined that paving over the tracks is impractical and only one-
way traffic could be accommodated.
The use of the railcut as a truckway could remove an estimated 270 one-way truck
transits from downtown streets. While the truckway has a beneficial impact on trucking
times and costs, road maintenance and greenhouse gas emissions, these benefits are
insufficient to justify the $40M required to modify the railcut to accommodate one-way
truck traffic.
9.0 Economic Analysis
The Port of Halifax has enormous economic impact on HRM and the Atlantic Region.
While neither the NIT nor the railway cut truckway option has a positive benefit/cost on
its own, the NIT has potential justification in the postponement of major capital
investment by increasing the effective capacity of the port.
An investment of $60M in NIT provides up to 250,000 TEUs of handling capacity for the
port, whereas according to the Maersk-Sealand proposal of 1998 for a new ocean
terminal (NOT), an investment of $300M would be required to provide an additional
550,000 TEUs of capacity. The NIT can postpone the capital investment required for a
NOT and is a cost-effective alternative to a third container terminal when the Port
approaches its capacity. The NIT allows the Port to grow and to continue to generate
significant economic benefits.
10.0 Stakeholder Consultations
A number of stakeholders were consulted during the course of this study. Concern was
expressed over who would operate the shuttle and the NIT and how service levels would
be maintained in the long term. Shipping lines, in particular, expressed concerns that
they would end up paying for the extra costs incurred and yet be unable to recover these
costs from either offsetting savings or from the cargo itself.
11.0 Value Added Opportunities
A NIT could act as a catalyst in the development of a new distribution park at the north
end of Burnside Industrial Park, providing synergies to shippers and national distributors
and retailers. At a minimum, the terminal provides better asset utilization for the trucking
industry. There will also be opportunities to do container storage, repair, reefer
maintenance and trip preparation, in addition to container leasing.

Halifax Inland Terminal and Trucking Options Study v
12.0 Value Proposition
The NIT reduces truck traffic in the city and saves wear and tear on local roads. It also
reduces air pollution and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). There is also some potential to
use hybrid locomotive technology for the shuttle operation.
The NIT increases the effective capacity of existing container terminals and postpones
the need to construct a new terminal when the port reaches its capacity. The NIT also
allows CN to move HIT and consolidate its volumes with NIT, leading to efficiencies. CN
would also have the option to consolidate its Rockingham and Dartmouth yard activities
at one location at some point in the future.
The project results in total economic impact of $130M in the construction phase. The
more interesting and longer term economic benefit is that the expansion allows the port
to continue to provide its economic impact (measured at $700M per year in 2001). At
this rate and under some assumptions concerning growth in port volumes (3.5%), the
port's overall economic impact will include 15,606 direct and indirect jobs and more
than$1.1B in annual income generation by 2022. The value of the NIT is in preserving
the continuation of economic benefits so that the growth of the port can reach this level
of activity and not be encumbered by capacity limitations which will inhibit these
incremental economic benefits.
13.0 Conclusions
Of the two alternatives considered to remove truck traffic from city streets, the NIT
concept is by far the best option.
However, there is not enough congestion at either container terminal or in downtown

Halifax to justify the NIT at present (2005). Moreover, whatever port congestion exists in
Halifax does not relate to locally- or regionally-trucked cargo, but to moving cargo inland
by rail to Quebec, Ontario and the US Midwest.
From an overall perspective, NIT operating costs can be slightly better than break-even
despite the additional handling, as long as sufficient captive railcars are provided to
ensure that locally-destined freight can go directly to rail .
The actual impact on the cost of moving local cargo will depend on negotiations amongst
the interested parties and how much each is willing to contribute towards achieving a
positive outcome.
The NIT’s economic justification is primarily based on the avoidance of capital costs
required to build a new container terminal. An investment of $60M in NIT provides an
additional 250,000 TEUs of handling capacity, whereas an investment of $300M in a
New Ocean Terminal provides an additional 550,000s TEUs of capacity.
It is recommended that the Halifax Port Authority and partners adopt a plan now to have
a NIT in operation by the time the port reaches its practical capacity. Negotiations should
begin as soon as possible to secure the quarry site and the northern rail right-of-way
around Rocky Lake. Some combination of HRM, HPA and CN should acquire these
properties in a prepared state, and work out the framework for moving forward.

Halifax Inland Terminal and Trucking Options Study vi
When the existing terminals are within 1-2 years of reaching capacity, the terminal
should be built (assuming the economics are still positive) and an operating company
established. A management strategy should be implemented to work with stakeholders
(terminals, shipping lines, shippers, truckers, labour) to ensure a smooth transition to the
new entity. Consideration should be given to providing the new entity with short-term
operating support.

Halifax Inland Terminal and Trucking Options Study 1
1.0 Introduction
The Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) was established in 1996, amalgamating the
former cities of Halifax and Dartmouth, the town of Bedford and the County of Halifax. It
now comprises 360,000 inhabitants in a municipality that stretches from Ecum Secum in
the east to Hubbards in the west. It is the 13th largest metropolitan region in Canada,
with one of the best educated workforces and lowest rates of unemployment in the
country. Throughout its 256-year history, the city and its port have been synonymous.
The Port of Halifax is one of Canada's largest commercial ports and one of the finest
harbours in the world. Located on the Great Circle Route, the Port of Halifax is the only
one on the east coast of North America capable of handling fully laden post-Panamax
container vessels. The Halifax Port Authority (HPA) was established in 1999 as an Agent
of the Crown. The HPA administers and promotes Halifax Harbour, including two
purpose-built container terminals – South End and Fairview Cove. The Port is located
within the jurisdictional boundaries of HRM.
A study undertaken by HRM in the fall of 2003 counted a total of 568 large trucks
entering or exiting the downtown via Barrington Street over an 11-hour period. This
volume of truck traffic impacts the downtown core in several ways, including noise and
exhaust emissions, wear and tear on the roadway surface, traffic congestion, and risk
from collision and spills.
The HPA and HRM commissioned this study to evaluate the role that an Inland Terminal
could play in alleviating some of the challenges presented by trucking activity, while
creating a potential ‘win-win’ scenario in smoothing logistical challenges for the freight
industry, and providing a platform for future growth of the Port, the Municipality and the
regional economy. The starting point to assemble the necessary critical mass could be
the container traffic at the Port of Halifax. At the same time, there are additional
complementary opportunities which could be assembled in concert with the development
of an inland terminal.
One potential solution is to move the CN Intermodal yard at Richmond Terminal to a site
outside the city, where it would handle truck traffic and domestic intermodal cargo, as
well as being the truck hand-off for international cargo moving through the port’s
container terminals. Containers would be moved to and from the intermodal yard by a
rail shuttle, reducing the movement of trucks through peninsular Halifax. It could
postpone the need for terminal expansion, except for lengthening of berths to
accommodate ever-larger vessels, and provide considerable operating efficiencies for
the terminals.
Shuttling containers by train to an inland terminal for transfer to truck will add an
additional ‘lift’ to the container, which in turn adds to its shipping cost. However, there
could be benefits to be gained by the Port in transferring the container storage function
from the confined port area to a location where storage space is more easily obtained.
Transporting most of these containers out of the urban core by train, then transferring
them to truck at an inland terminal would significantly reduce truck traffic on the
peninsula. Container traffic from the South End Terminal is the main interest of HRM, as
the impact of these trucks is a greater issue downtown than it is at Fairview Cove.
However, traffic to and from CeresGlobal terminal at Fairview Cove is also considered.

A second concept is the development of an exclusive truckway connecting the South

End Terminal to a point outside Halifax’s peninsular core. Although a functional plan and
capital cost analysis for implementation of this concept were completed in 2003, the
operational benefits, if any, have not been explored until now. The proposed truckway
would be integrated into a fully active railway corridor.
The HPA and HRM were therefore interested in evaluating the merits of an Inland
Terminal as a long-term option. This study examines whether a solution that relieves the
impact of trucks passing through the historic downtown waterfront district is economically
and technically feasible. ideally, it would also create an intermodal transfer process that
enhances the supply chains of local retailers, Halifax-based industry and the economy
generally. The proponents of the study seek to evaluate the quality and quantity of
improvements that an inland terminal can bring to both the existing situation and the long
term. The study will also determine the economic effects of operating a truckway and
provide an economic comparison of the two proposed concepts.
The study examines 1) the economic analysis of an inland terminal; 2) an operational

analysis of the concept; and 3) a site selection evaluation for such a terminal to be
located in Nova Scotia.
1.1 Background
The genesis of the proposed study represents a confluence of several ideas and
circumstances. HRM has been seeking ways to mitigate the impact of truck traffic
entering or exiting port terminals located in the south end of the city. The issue is
becoming especially critical as more residential development takes place downtown, and
is highlighted by cruise ship visits during non-winter months. In 2003, the city
commissioned a study of the so-called railway cut which runs from Halterm / Ocean
Terminals through to the vicinity of Fairview Cove, to determine whether it could double
as both a rail and truck corridor. The study concluded it would cost $40 M to make the
necessary improvements and build the infrastructure required to effect the desired result.
Since the fall of 2002, CN Rail has instituted major changes in the way it serves
customers of the Port of Halifax, which has led to congestion at the port’s two container
terminals, one in particular. Whereas prior to September 2002, containers discharged
from ships were transferred directly from ship to rail, the railway now operates on a
‘scheduled’ basis. Cargo is most often grounded before it is loaded to rail and sent to
inland destinations. Neither Halifax terminal was designed for this type of operation,
which has led to delays in getting containers to inland destinations.
Many North American ports are experiencing similar types of congestion. The type of
inland terminal that is prevalent in other ports, as well as many inland destinations, may
be applicable in the current Halifax context. This study examines ‘best practices’ at three
such ports – Auckland, New Zealand, Vancouver, BC and New Orleans, LA.
The HPA, along with several partners including the Greater Halifax Partnership,
concluded the Greater Halifax Distribution Study in 2004. That study suggested the port
and the city could lever already existing shipping and distribution activity, as well as
additional regional or national distribution activity, to attract distribution centres, third
party logistics providers (3PLs) or transload facilities to HRM. Certain criteria needed to
be met, including access to large tracts of land adjacent to rail and highways. This

present study evaluates the impact that an inland terminal could have on this type of
activity.
There could be a considerable economic development upside to this opportunity, which

would result in operating efficiencies at the port, and a more efficient hand-off to and
from CN’s mainline, both in and outbound.
1.2 Objectives
The study has several overall objectives: 1) reducing truck traffic through peninsular
Halifax Regional Municipality; 2) increasing port cargo handling capacity; 3) improving
truck turnaround times; 4) providing a nucleus to the development of additional
distribution activity in and around the port.
In addition, each stakeholder has its own unique objectives:
1.2.1 Halifax Regional Municipality
The objectives of HRM are to 1) reduce congestion on Hollis and Lower Water St.; 2)
gain another access into the city core; 3) reduce wear and tear on city streets; 4)
improve the commuter experience and reduce commuter traffic; 5) reduce vehicular
emissions; 6) provide a nucleus for distribution and other value-added industrial activity.
1.2.2 Halifax Port Authority
The Halifax Port Authority wishes to 1) maximize the use of its existing terminals; 2)
postpone major dock and infrastructure investment; 3) lower the risk of an environmental
incident; 4) improve the efficiency of the overall Halifax gateway; 5) provide a nucleus for
distribution centre activity so as to attract additional cargo through the port.
1.2.3 CN
As a major stakeholder in the Halifax region, CN’s objectives are fourfold: 1) reduce
inefficiencies associated with the operation of the existing domestic terminal (HIT); 2)
recoup the value of lands owned by CN; 3) maintain operational flexibility; 4) gain
operational efficiencies.
1.2.4 Container Terminals
In general, the container terminals seek to 1) simplify the handling process; 2) reduce
the costs of handling; 3) increase throughput capacity by reducing on-site storage; and
4) return to a direct ship-to-rail operation.
1.2.5 Trucking Industry
The trucking industry has a desire to 1) improve unit productivity; 2) reduce costs of
providing service; 3) increase gate hours; 4) provide faster turnaround at terminals; and
5) avoid congested routes.

1.2.6 Labour Objectives
Labour has two primary objectives: 1) protect the port’s competitive position; 2) protect
and enhance the members’ income and working conditions.
1.3 Guiding Principles of the Study
The following guiding principles were adhered to throughout the study: 1) a holistic
approach to the problem and potential outcomes; 2) a ‘level playing field’ for both major
container terminals located in the port; 3) the desire for no net increase in costs to
carriers serving the Port of Halifax; 4) all activities to be commercially viable; and 5) the
NIT is to be located along the CN mainline.

2.0 Current Situation
2.1 Volumes
In 2004 the Port handled some 525,000 TEUs of intermodal freight, approximately 60%
of which originates in or is destined to Montreal, Toronto, Chicago, etc. Another 20%
(10% counted twice) of this volume is transhipment cargo either from one ocean service
to another or between a feeder service and an ocean carrier. The remaining 20% is
trucked to the local market.
Most of this cargo is handled at one of the two dedicated container terminals in Halifax –
Halterm or Ceres. However, containers are also regularly handled by Logistec, and are
occasionally carried on bulk and break bulk vessels. For the purposes of this study, the
container volumes handled by Logistec and Halterm are combined into ‘Halterm’.
Port terminals in Halifax act as distribution terminals for the local market, holding import
containers until the consignee is ready (or able) to pick up the freight. The terminals also
provide handling and storage of empty containers. An estimated 30% of all import
containers into the local market return to the port terminals as empties awaiting another
booking. Terminals also regularly handle empties to and from rail to balance container
fleets for the shipping lines. They move containers around for repairs, prepare
refrigerated containers for bookings (pre-tripping reefers) and provide other handling
services on the terminal per the shipping lines’ requests.
A portion of the cargo destined for rail and transhipment destinations is targeted for full
inspection by local Customs, CFIA or Drug Interdiction authorities. These boxes
temporarily become local destination boxes, and after inspection are returned to the
terminals to continue their normal voyage.
In 2004, approximately 25,000 intermodal units were handled through the Halifax
Intermodal Terminal (HIT). Overall, the number of trucks calling at all of the intermodal
terminals in the city averages 343 per working day. This estimate is based on 90% truck
balance, i.e. 90% of the trucks calling at these terminals are both bringing in a container
and picking up a container, with only 10% making a single move.
2.2 Infrastructure and Container Handling
There are two main container terminals in the Port of Halifax – Halterm in the south end
and CeresGlobal at Fairview Cove. There is also a facility at Ocean Terminals operated
by Logistec that handles a number of smaller container services.
Halterm was built in the late 1960s to handle freight shipped in containers, a relatively
new idea at the time. The concept caught on and the industry grew very quickly.
The Fairview Cove terminal was built between 1978-81 to increase the capacity for
container handling in Halifax and to provide a competitive alternative to Halterm. The
Fairview Cove terminal is operated by CeresGlobal, a division of NYK Line, which
acquired Cerescorp in 2001.
The majority of intermodal freight moving through the port is destined for points that are
best served by rail. The distances from the Port of Halifax to its main markets of

Montreal, Toronto and the US Midwest, make inland transportation by road

uneconomical. As a gateway, Halifax must compete with alternative routings such as the
ports of New York and Montreal, which are closer to these major inland markets.
Both Halifax terminals have on-dock rail and were designed primarily as ship to rail
transfer facilities. Until recently nearly all the import containers arriving in Halifax would
be handled directly to rail as part of the offloading sequence. More recently, cost saving
measures implemented by CN, such as IMX and tighter railcar supply, have led to
grounding significantly more of these import containers destined for rail.
Containers to/from markets such as New Brunswick, Eastern Quebec, Prince Edward
Island and Nova Scotia are generally trucked directly to the shipper's door from the
container terminals. When intermodal transportation started in Halifax, the market share
within trucking distance was less than 10%. The higher growth rate of this segment of
the market is due, at least in part, to the access to world markets the Port of Halifax
provides to regional producers and importers, as well as the comparative decline of the
port of Saint John as a container gateway.
Both major Halifax terminals have post-Panamax ship-to-shore cranes and the capacity
to handle the largest containerships in the world today, although all of the ships
presently calling the port are of Panamax size or smaller.
Import containers are taken away from the cranes on chassis pulled by hustlers and
directed to either a rail track, if a suitable railcar slot is available, or to a stacking area.
Containers are removed from the hustler chassis by either a top-lifter or a Rubber Tired
Gantry (RTG) and either loaded to a railcar or transferred to a stack for temporary
storage.
The reverse cycle is very similar, with the ship being supplied primarily from stacks of
containers previously received from truck, rail or trans-shipment, sorted and segregated
for loading by type, destination and weight.
An export container is removed from the stack by an RTG and loaded onto a chassis
that is then hauled by a hustler to the ship-to-shore cranes according to a pre-planned
loading pattern for the vessel. A ship-to shore crane then takes the container off the
chassis and positions it in the designated slot on the ship.
Both terminals operate truck gates on weekdays to handle containers hauled over the
road and can at times work rail 19 hours per day, 7 days a week, according to demand.
Handling containers to/from ground (stacks) from/to rail requires a machine to handle the
container at either end of the cycle and a hustler to transport the box between the two
locations. Handling to/from truck from/to stack is accomplished by allowing the truck to
enter the terminal and go to the stack for pick-up or delivery where the container is
handled with a top-lifter or reach stacker, depending on the preferred method of working
a particular stack and equipment availability. For the purposes of this study, a terminal
handling cycle is considered a handling irrespective of the type of cycle or the type of
equipment employed.
Halterm regularly operates a truck gate on Friday evenings and Saturday mornings to
meet the service requirements of Oceanex, a shipping line that transports primarily
domestic freight and acts as a short-sea feeder service to Newfoundland for international

freight. Domestic traffic tends to be much more time sensitive than international cargo
and often arrives ‘just in time’ for shipment.
Ceres generally operates a truck gate only on weekdays but offers extended hours of
service to cope with their higher volumes and still maintain a reasonable truck
turnaround.
Both terminals presently act as empty storage facilities for their customers. Containers
are stored as empties on the terminal awaiting a freight booking. They are generally
segregated by line, size and type and occupy a significant land area, although they are
block-stowed to minimize land use. On occasion, specific containers need to be dug out
of these block stows. As a consequence of the empties being stored on the container
terminals, container repairs (at least the minor ones) are performed on the terminals.
Electrical plugs are available on the terminals for temperature-controlled containers

(reefers). Both the temporary storage of loaded reefers and the pre-tripping of empty
reefers are performed on the terminals. Pre-tripping requires an empty reefer to be
handled to a plug-in to be pre-set to its appropriate temperature and tested prior to being
dispatched to a booking. Often the container must be repositioned to the empty reefer
stack after pre-tripping as reefer plugs are often in short supply.
Logistec handles containers on and off ships using a mobile crane or ship’s gear. The
process is very similar to the process used at the larger terminals. Containers are
handled from the ship to a chassis, hauled by a hustler to a storage area and grounded
with a top-lifter, awaiting transfer to rail. Truck servicing is performed as required and is
sometimes scheduled. The volume of truck traffic is not sufficient to justify a daily gate
operation.
Assuming container volumes grow over the next few years and port terminals consume
presently unused capacity (principally in terms of land area), container stacks will
become fuller, containers will be stacked higher, and more interference will be
experienced with the trucks on the terminal.
Truck gate times will need to be further extended, pushing a higher proportion of the
work into overtime periods and increasing the average handling costs. As a terminal
reaches its sustainable capacity, congestion occurs more and more frequently. Higher
and fuller stacking requires more moves to access a particular container for pick-up and
reduces the effective productivity of the equipment and of labour. Backlogs can occur
and can take a very long time to clear up.
2.3 Halifax Intermodal Terminal (HIT)
HIT is CN’s terminal for domestic freight. While initially set up to handle trailers, the
terminal has seen a shift in its intermodal traffic as more and more domestic freight is
being handled in containers, either high cube pallet-wide 53 ft domestic containers or
ISO-type international containers that require repositioning into export markets.
There are still trailers being handled at HIT, but the traffic continues to shift towards
containerization. RTGs with lift arms are used to handle containers and trailers to and
from double-stacked railcars to a chassis.

Generally HIT will live-load export (from Halifax) directly from trucks as they arrive at the
terminal. The import (to Halifax) units are handled to wheels (ground in the case of a
trailer, chassis in the case of a container) and are stored on wheels for direct delivery to
trucks. Hustlers are used to shunt the trailers and chassis around the terminal as
required.
The terminal is presently underutilized and this underutilization has increased handling
costs.
2.4 Capacity
The estimated practical port capacity of the existing terminals in Halifax is 800,000 TEUs
per year. With some investment and incremental land annexation, there is probably
another 100,000 TEUs of overall practical capacity that could be squeezed out of the
system at some relatively minor (compared to the alternatives) costs.
Port capacity is limited by a number of factors;

 Quay length and berthing capacity;
 Equipment – ship to shore cranes;
 Storage areas (generally the most common limitation).
The nature of the business in Halifax is such that the practical port capacity is limited
primarily by storage area. Large ships exchanging a small proportion of their containers
in Halifax have driven the port and terminals to provide berths and quay cranes to
accommodate the random nature of the calls and their requirements for crane
guarantees.
Berths are not highly occupied and quay cranes can be added as required. Land area for
storage is much more difficult to create.
The concept of a NIT would free up land presently used for empty storage, truck
marshalling, gate processing and truck roadways on the existing terminals. The
incremental port capacity created by the NIT could be as much as 250,000 TEUs per
year when the port reaches its practical capacity.
2.5 Traffic Distribution
There is very little information available on the distribution of local intermodal traffic. In
order to develop a realistic pattern for distribution within the local market, five of the
major shipping lines calling Halifax were consulted and asked to provide distribution data
in percentages by zone. In most cases their distribution patterns are very similar. These
five shipping lines represent almost two-thirds of the total port traffic, and the weighted
average of their traffic distribution is used for the purposes of this study. The traffic is
divided into the following zones:
- Truro and beyond (includes any traffic passing through Truro)
- The Annapolis Valley
- The South Shore of Nova Scotia
- Burnside Industrial Park
- Bayers Lake
- Other areas within the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM)

As can be seen in Figure 2.1, 60% of all the cargo trucked to and from the Port of Halifax
has an origin/destination of Truro or beyond. Within HRM, 80% of the containers are
destined to or are coming from Burnside Industrial Park.
Figure 2.1
Container origin/destinations
Proportion of port traffic
Bayers Other Truro and South

Burnside Valley
Lake HRM beyond Shore
17% 3% 1% 60% 5% 13%
For each of these origin/destinations, a geographic node (a point through which all this
traffic must transit) was chosen as a reference point to compare the
advantages/disadvantages of certain proposed sites. The change in transportation
distances and cost that would result from the NIT being situated at a particular site can
then be quantified. As an example, the intersection between highways 101 and 102 was
chosen as the node for the Annapolis Valley zone.
Figure 2.2 shows the distances between these node points and the existing and
proposed new inland terminals.
Figure 2.2
Truck distances (Kilometres)
Bayers Truro and South

Burnside Other HRM Valley
Lake beyond Shore
Halterm 15 13 4 60 25 16
Ceres 7 9 5 51 20 11
HIT 8 11 3 53 22 13
Quarry 10 17 25 47 5 24
Milford Station 38 51 59 6 39 58
Rail Cut 14 17 13 59 28 19
For the purposes of this study it was assumed that all the intermodal domestic traffic is
destined to HRM and has the same distribution pattern within HRM as the ocean freight.
Most of the domestic intermodal traffic to/from areas beyond Truro would more likely be
handled at CN’s Moncton Intermodal Terminal. In addition, most of the consolidation
traffic to/from the Valley and South Shore would first be routed to a Halifax cross-dock or
warehousing facility.

3.0 Best Practices
The Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles is probably the most obvious example of an inland
terminal in North America. However, its cost and volume projections, as well as the
annual throughput of the L.A./Long Beach port complex are beyond the scale of anything
contemplated for Halifax and thus not really relevant in the present context. Three other
inland terminals, located in Vancouver, New Orleans and Auckland, New Zealand, were
examined for this study.
3.1 Auckland
Auckland is the largest city in New Zealand, with a population of 1.4 million. Like Halifax,
the city of Auckland and its port have a symbiotic relationship.
Figure 3.1: City of Auckland, with container terminals in foreground
Ports of Auckland Limited operates two ports, one in Auckland and another at
Onehunga. The one in Auckland has two container terminals, Axis Fergusson and Axis
Bledsoe, less than 2 km apart, and in the middle are conventional wharves. Ports of
Auckland is also the stevedoring company. There is no competition within the port, but
the company competes with other ports, which are all listed companies on the New
Zealand stock exchange. Ports of Auckland is 80% owned by the Auckland Regional
Council and is a profitable corporation.
In 2004, Axis Ferguson handled 380,000 TEUs and Axis Bledsoe 280,000 TEUs. The
general wharves handled 100,000 TEUs, for a total of 760,000 TEUs. Container
terminals in Auckland have competition from Tauranga (400,000 TEUs) about 200 km
away, which has its own inland terminal in Auckland. Auckland has been losing market
share to Tauranga and has seen cargo declines in the past two years.
For Auckland there are two primary motivations for building inland terminals: 1) taking
trucks off city roads during daytime; 2) taking vehicles off roads and putting them onto
rail at all times during day and night. Similar to the concept studied in this report, there
are no problems yet with port terminal capacity but it is expected to become an issue

within a few years. Auckland’s inland terminals are viewed by Ports of Auckland Limited
as providing additional capacity at the seaport. The other advantage is the increased
utilization of trucks; at present only 12% of trucks have two-way loads, which represents
a cost in the supply chain. Strategically, Ports of Auckland wants to create up to five
inland terminals.
Figure 3.2: Ports of Auckland Inland Terminal Locations
Auckland is a major centre for imports and exports but most of its exports originate about
25 km south of the city. The inland terminals can provide a service to importers that is
either fast or slow, i.e. they can provide storage for them if the shipment is not urgent.
They will also stuff and destuff containers there.
In going ahead with the development of its first inland terminal, Ports of Auckland
believed it could run such a terminal and make a reasonable rate of return on the
investment, pricing it the same as going in and out of the port by truck.
Significantly, the port needs congestion in the city’s transportation system to make the
inland terminal concept work. It also needs two-way loads and realistic trucking prices
that take into account both distance and time. The port pays for the truck shuttle,
negotiating the price with the truckers rather than having the steamship lines do so. The
trucks can do 2-3 runs at night in the same time as one during the day, yielding better
asset utilization
The port pays the cost and passes it on to consignee or shipper. Prices are as follows:
NZ$95 / 40’; NZ$65 / 20’; NZ$95 / 20’ heavy. (New Zealand currency trades at
USD$0.69 vs USD$0.84 for the Canadian dollar.) The port is working on bringing rail
onto the terminal, which it may subsidize slightly.

Empties are stored on site. Empty activity is quite different as it is aligned to the cargo
interest and what is best for the supply chain. The individual shipping lines have about
six empty yards scattered around Auckland, whereas the port stores boxes for all
shipping lines. The port has also recently invested in a container depot.
Figure 3.3: Ports of Auckland, East Tamaki Inland Terminal
There are other issues at play. Export cargo is very scattered throughout the North
Island and it is easy for other ports such as Tauranga with its own inland terminals to
compete with Ports of Auckland. Tauranga, which is located 200 kms from Auckland has
its own inland terminal called Metroport right in Auckland, and this terminal is a loss
leader. The port pays for the full move, but they reason that they get a return through
stevedoring and port charges. Tauranga presently handles 400,000 TEU per annum.
To help stave off competition, Auckland’s future strategy therefore includes the
development of 4-5 inland ports beyond the Auckland region. Rail is used for importers
and exporters outside Auckland, which is how Auckland competes with Tauranga. Ports
of Auckland Limited has a number of projects ready to be developed.
The East Tamaki terminal will be 10 hectares in size, with 4 hectares of rail exchange
area. Stage 1 is 5 hectares but the ultimate design is for 200,000–300,000 TEUs,
depending on dwell time. In the early stages, dwell time will be extended to attract
customers. The 5-hectare site includes a truck exchange and small site buildings with
380 slots for empties and 350 for full containers. The terminal is equipped with reach
stackers and top lifters and containers are stacked up to 4 high, and 3 deep.
Auckland allocated the costs and benefits of developing its inland terminals as follows:
The transport community wanted the port to do it for nothing, whereas the port thinks it
will eventually save costs at the seaport by freeing up space on the terminals and
postponing the need for expensive expansion of the terminals.
The different components are paid for by the cargo interests. In terms of Halifax,
Auckland recommends the port focus on cargo interests, not the shipping lines or the
transport community. It should be sold on the basis of storage, delivery and speed.
Only 12% of Auckland’s trucks had 2-way moves before the inland terminals were
introduced. It is also better for consignees to collect their cargo closer to where it is
going or originating. The port expects it will recover most of the costs involved, but it will
aggressively price ‘strategic’ cargoes that could move via competing ports.
Not all stakeholders are comfortable with adding a link in the transportation chain, and
some cargo interests will not use the inland terminals unless forced to do so. Some
importers have their own yards and receive at night and have efficiencies already built

in. They are, however, trying to get them to shift as land and equipment are expensive
and could be used for something else.
Only 13% of Auckland’s volume presently goes by rail to an inland terminal. It moves 34
TEUs each way and need 75% utilization both ways to compete with truck. It is likely that
up to 40 TEUs will be achieved with no additional terminal capacity required. The track is
owned by the state and there is one user, a public company (TOLL) which is an
Australian logistics company. The port authority buys and underwrites the rail shuttle.
The inland terminal has to be used as an empty storage yard to optimize the local
delivery aspect. Export empties are 35% of total export TEUs. In other parts of the
country imports are empty containers and total 21% of all import volume. Many of the
empties are reefers.
The inland terminal is run by the stevedore Axis, which is wholly owned by Ports of
Auckland Limited. The land will always be owned by the port authority and activity
subcontracted on site.
In terms of land costs at inland terminals vs. port or waterfront, it costs NZ$700 per m 2 of
land reclamation from dredging and NZ$1,000 per m 2 of land reclamation from infill,
whereas inland the cost is $200-$250 per m2 and raw land costs NZ$70-100 per m2.
3.2 Vancouver
The inland terminal in Vancouver was developed by Coast Terminals, which was a small
container stuffing facility until the late 1990s. In 1997 it was asked to handle containers
and a small shipper’s pool and it experienced phenomenal growth in containerized
imports and a demand from the forest products industry to move away from break bulk.
Coast Terminals acquired its land in Richmond in 1998. As it got into the project, it
needed more capital. At the time, Coast was a contractor to the Port of Vancouver,
running a CFS at Deltaport, so they were already business partners. When Coast was
building the inland terminal, the Port came in as a 50:50 partner with a new company
called Coast 2000. A separate but related company called Modalink was established as
a real estate development entity. They negotiated land leases with the Fraser River
Group and the Port of Vancouver and Coast 2000 is now a partnership with Western
Stevedoring, which bought out the Vancouver Port Authority (VPA) in 2004.

Figure 3.4: Location of Coast 2000 Terminal
From the VPA’s perspective, it needed infrastructure to make the inland terminal concept
happen. For a small operator, $15M was a lot of money at the time, so the Port’s
investment was most welcome.
The first phase of the terminal was 12 ha, then 24 ha, and now 40 ha. It is part of a 285-
hectare parcel developed by Fraser River Ports on its Richmond Properties. The
intention is to bring exporters and importers to this location. Hudson’s Bay Company
(HBC) was just down the road and has now located on the same site.
Figure 3.5: Coast 2000 Terminal, Phase I
The development of the facility was driven by the shift from break bulk and the ability to
turn import equipment over to export shippers. To do this it had to become a full service
container yard.
The concept was to bring in an ocean container, destuff it and load it with export cargo.
This eliminates empty truck moves on both the import and export side. It is are just an

export facility at the moment, but wishes to attract more importers such as HBC, and
have their facilities built on site.
There were traffic issues and some benefits to doing this. Vancouver has a complicated
planning process with many different jurisdictions. In February 2005, the facility removed
600 truck trips from area roads.
Rail service on the west coast is congested and it is difficult to divert container cars.
Although an inland rail terminal is some years away, Coast 2000 is looking at having a
rail facility on site or immediately adjacent.
Presently there are 12 ha developed with 24,154 m² of container freight station (CFS)
warehouse. Uniquely, there is a barge dock to receive forest products from up and down
the coast. The container yard, now in the first phase, will have a total capacity of 28,000
TEUs. The shed has capacity for 750,000 metric tonnes of annual throughput. Land
utilization is about 600 TEUs per hectare.
In the overall context, the port and terminals benefit. The customer gets his container
much quicker. Furthermore, as in Auckland, the trucker gets two laden moves – one
import box and one export box. It used to be one import and an empty, or one empty and
a full container. Although another link has been added to the chain, clients have
accepted it because it actually reduces the number of moves by two.
The terminal is also used as empty storage yard and for loaded imports. Large retailers
use it for pre-buy for sales and other promotional events.
Reefers are pre-tripped by third parties and there are 18 plugs on site. Stuffing and
destuffing is a big part of the operation. At this point, however, the terminal is predicated
on forest products loaded into export containers.
Coast Terminals is a private company, owned by two partners – Coast 2000 and
Western Stevedoring. There are 8 managers and 65 labourers working at the terminal. It
is subject to Teamster labour agreements.
The container yard is open 07:00-16:00 and the warehouse 24 hrs. The terminal is
equipped with 7 high empty toplifters; 5 high reach stackers and many clamp trucks for
forest products. The maximum number of moves required to access an import container
is 9.
The local ratio of the cost of land at inland terminal vs. port or waterfront is $1.5M for
waterfront and $0.5M for inland.
3.3 New Orleans
New Orleans is a major bulk port, handling over 30 million tonnes of cargo per annum.
Its container volume was 302,318 TEUs in 2002, through three terminals: APMT, P&O
Ports and CeresGlobal. New Orleans enjoys the benefit of having six railways serving
the port and region: CN, CSX, KCS, BNSF, NS and UP – all of which have their own
intermodal terminals. There are no ondock rail facilities as there are in other US ports,
but there is an underutilized port shuttle railway. Each railway has its own intermodal

terminal but there is no inland intermodal terminal operated by the port. Only 1-2% of
New Orleans’ container cargo moves inland by rail; the rest is served by truck.
Figure 3.6: New Orleans Container Terminal
The New Orleans intermodal terminal studied for this project is operated by CN. It was
previously located downtown and separated from the main container terminals by about
8 miles (12.8 km). The new terminal is about 18 months old. Its construction was
motivated by the desire to serve both import and domestic intermodal cargo more
efficiently.
The terminal is about 6 ha, with 300 TEUs of storage capacity, and it was designed to
handle about 36,000 lifts per annum. According to the manager, it could actually do
double this amount with the proper equipment and manning.
It has been accepted by the trade because they had no choice if they wanted to continue
to ship with CN. The cost, which is US$120-$150 round trip, is borne by the shipper. The
cost includes the lift to rail and some storage days.
3.4 Lessons Learned
There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from the experience of ports
elsewhere:
 Chronic congestion is required somewhere in the existing system to make the

concept of an inland terminal work. The Alameda Corridor development was
driven by chronic congestion in the LA / Long Beach region, which was choking
from an onslaught of imports from the Far East and a rapidly growing local
market. The terminals in Auckland were developed to relieve highway congestion
in the daytime.
 An inland terminal appears to achieve better asset utilization for both ports and
truckers. If a trucker can get four turns of his vehicle during the time that it once
took him to do two, he has increased his productivity and asset utilization.

Likewise, if an empty move can become a full move, then this will improve
productivity and remove vehicles from the road. Ports and terminals get better
asset utilization by freeing up space devoted to storage of import or export
containers.
 Shippers get better and quicker access to cargo. Shippers, particularly those in
Auckland, get better access to their cargo because it is shuttled to a region close
to where they are located. They avoid long queues getting into container
terminals and highway congestion getting to and from the terminal.
 In terms of the value proposition and ‘selling’ the concept, it is best to focus on
the shippers and not the traditional transport community, i.e. the shipping lines or
terminal operators. The traditional transport community will tend to baulk at doing
things differently, so the potential operator should focus on the main
beneficiaries, including stakeholders.
 It helps to have the port and other partners invest in the project. As the
Vancouver Port Authority demonstrated with the Coast 2000 project, it helps to
have the port authority act as a catalyst and provide both moral support and
investment capital to get the project off the ground.

4.0 Vision for New Inland Terminal (NIT)
4.1 NIT Concept
All truck-related activities presently carried out at HIT and at the port container terminals
would be relocated to the NIT. The land at HIT would become available for other
purposes and the port container terminals would no longer operate or maintain truck
gate systems.
Sufficient rail cars would remain captive to the inter-terminal rail shuttle service to ensure
that at least 95% of import containers destined for the local market, as well as
repositioned empties, could be handled directly from ship to rail. Containers targeted for
full inspection would also go directly to the rail shuttle while so-called ‘door’ and ‘critical’
inspections would continue to be performed at the port.
At the NIT, most import containers would be taken off the rail shuttle and stacked for
pickup and delivery, while export cargo would be handled directly to rail from truck.
The NIT would also act as an empty storage facility, handling empties to and from trucks
and on occasion to and from rail when empties are repositioned by shipping lines.
Domestic intermodal freight would be handled from rail to chassis and directly from truck
to rail.
The NIT would rely primarily on reach stackers for container and trailer handling. These
machines are versatile and can be dispatched quickly to any area of the terminal.
The NIT design would provide improved truck turnaround times, with a service standard
of 30 minutes per truck compared to approximately 45 minutes at present.
The study initially focussed on a NIT designed to handle present (2004) volumes as
Phase I, with provision for projected growth over the next 20 years (up to 1M TEUs). It
soon became evident that this option was not economically viable until the port begins to
reach its capacity. As the first phase of construction would likely occur when the port is
handling 900,000 TEUs, Phase II was sized to handle 1.5M TEUs of port capacity,
based on the existing mix of business.
4.2 NIT Capacity
A NIT designed to handle all the trucking volume from both ocean carriers and CN could
expect to handle the same 343 truck calls per day, although there could be some
synergies with HIT. In particular, there would be an increase in the percentage of
balanced truck moves, as all intermodal containers would be available at the same
location.
About 212,000 one-way handlings would need to occur at the NIT, based on 2004 actual
volumes of ocean freight and domestic intermodal freight. On average, an estimated 413
full ocean import containers would be stored at the NIT, awaiting pickup and delivery,
based on a dwell time of three working days.
A NIT would also need room to accommodate an average of 881 empty containers, the
estimated number of active empty containers based on a 10-working day dwell time, and
68 domestic containers on chassis, based on an average 2-day dwell time.

4.3 NIT Operation
The NIT would provide the trucking interface for all intermodal cargo presently handled
at the existing port and rail terminals in Halifax. Intermodal trucks would be kept off city
streets except for local deliveries and emergencies. Truckers and shippers would benefit
from longer hours of operation and quicker turnaround times at NIT. CN’s HIT activities
would be moved to NIT, and the existing port terminals would recoup land presently
used for truck marshalling, gate operations, empty container storage, container repair,
etc.
As all trucks would call at the NIT, the opportunities for balancing loads would improve,
although the present container per truck ratio is very good, at 1:9 for all terminals. That
is, over 90% of all trucks exchange containers, as opposed to picking up or dropping off
a single container.
The NIT operating company should be a separate company or profit centre with its own
management, billing and administrative functions. The following is a typical
organizational chart for a small terminal operating company:
G e ne ral M a na ge r
CE O
E x ec u tive
A s s is ta nt
O p eration s A dm in.
M a n age r M a n age r
M ec h a n ic s S h ift S u pe rv is o rs / S e c urity A c co unt ant

(3 ) P lann e rs (4) (4) (1)
O pe ra to rs
(13 )
It is desirable that the shuttle operator (likely CN) have an equity investment in the NIT to
ensure that the objectives of the shuttle operator are aligned with those of the NIT.
Scheduling and IT systems need to properly mesh and close day-to-day
communications will be essential to ensure service objectives are met.
The terminal itself would be a secure bonded facility and the yard layout would
incorporate a truck marshalling area, a gate building, pad tracks and various container
storage areas. The terminal could be open 24 hours/day 7 days/week and handle trucks
at any time, although it is likely that the terminal would be shut down for certain periods
throughout the week if the volume of activity does not warrant keeping it open.

Automated scheduling would be implemented to keep the queuing of trucks to a

minimum and to ensure truck turnarounds meet expected performance levels.
Trucks would enter the facility from the southwest end of the yard and the terminal would
be laid out in such a way that all circulation is one way. While this may occasionally
require that trucks drive further up and down the terminal, it makes traffic on the terminal
much safer and allows all containers to be stacked in the right direction (doors facing the
rear of the truck). See layout and cross-section sketches of Phase 1 in Section 6.1.
Containers would be handled with reach stackers throughout the terminal. A total of
seven units (each capable of lifting 40-tonne containers from the second row and
reaching into the third row for lighter boxes) would be required at 2004 volume levels, as
would two hustlers. Two sets of trailer arms would be required for handling trailers on/off
rail.
Two pad tracks, spaced 190 ft (58 m) apart would allow for stacking between the tracks
and easy transfer from rail to stack. These tracks would be of sufficient length 8,000 ft
(2,438 m) to minimize switching requirements. A service track would be built beside the
existing main line track. This track will serve as a run-around and temporary storage
track.
At the heart of the NIT operation is a state-of-the-art terminal management and inventory
system with Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS). The terminal management
system (integrated IT system) will plan every move based on all the information available
to it. This information would typically include:
 Container locations in 3D based on DGPS verification

 Equipment locations, live DGPS
 Number of moves required to access the container
 Best container to choose in the case of an empty to be picked up or a
multi-container booking.

4.3.1 Process
The following is a description of a typical inland terminal handling process for a truck
exchanging containers on the terminal:
1. The truck arrives in the marshalling yard where the driver has access to an
automated teller. The driver enters his/her container number, booking number and
security code for both the container he is delivering and the one he is picking up.
He/she also enters identification information such as truck number, company and
driver identification.
2. If all is in order, instructions on where to drop off and pick up the container are
printed by the automated teller. The driver then proceeds to a security
check/inspection area where the container being delivered is inspected for damage,
the container and seal numbers verified and recorded. It is at this moment that the
terminal interchange receipt for the container being picked up would typically be
signed.
3. The truck driver then proceeds to a defined location for drop off where he/she will
meet a reach stacker that has been assigned the task of handling the container off
the truck. The task is assigned to the reach stacker automatically by the terminal
management system. The system communicates a work instruction to the equipment
operator via an on-board interactive display. A DGPS allows the computer system to
know where all the equipment is at all times and adjusts plans and work instructions
as required.
4. Once unloaded, the truck proceeds to the pickup location where once more a reach
stacker handles the designated container, this time onto the truck chassis.
5. The truck is then allowed to exit the facility after a simple verification of the container
number, as the paperwork has already been completed. Truck turnaround would be
calculated from the time the driver has communicated all the pertinent information to
the automatic teller, until the time the truck exits the gate.
One of the characteristics of a reach stacker is that it must shift containers to another
row when digging. The DGPS features on the machines will allow the terminal
management system to both verify that the instruction was properly executed and also
keep track, in real time, of the 3D locations of any box shifted.
Containers would be laid out in a 1-2-3-3-2-1 pattern if access is available from both
sides of the stack and in a 1-2-3 pattern if access is limited to one side only. This
stacking pattern uses two-thirds of the 3-high stacking capacity of the pile and allows
containers to be available on a random selection basis as the second move (on
average), using a reach stacker.
Empty containers would be mixed in with full containers in the previously mentioned
piles. However, any high-volume or slow-moving empties would be block stowed at least
four high.
Wheeled storage space is provided for trailers and pre-loaded chassis. Over-width and
over-height containers would also be pre-loaded onto chassis for temporary storage on
the terminal although every effort should be made to have this type of container removed
from the facility as soon as possible.

A maintenance facility with two indoor bays for servicing the reach stackers and other
vehicles would be built. All vehicles would be serviced according to a planned
maintenance schedule. Mechanics would be on site whenever more than three
machines are working. Ideally all the office and maintenance functions could be
accommodated within a single structure.

5.0 NIT SITE SELECTION
5.1 Methodology
In order to determine the best site, a 35-parameter site characteristics model was
employed. As shown in Figure 5.1, the ideal requirements for NIT are described for the
‘perfect’ site, which is usually unobtainable. These site parameters are critical to the
terminal requirements and are therefore classified as NOGO factors, while others are a
matter of relative cost to other sites. NOGO factors are shown in red in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1
SITE CHARACTERISTICS NIT

Property Ideal/Min
Size (acres) 60
Minimum Width (ft) 375
Minimum Length (ft) 7000
Expansion (acres) for adjacent development 100
Zoning Non-residential Yes
Security Ranking (1-10) 10 is the best 10
Major Structure Relocation Required No
Major Demolition Required No
Acquisition
Land Value 0
Estimated Expropriation Costs 0
Assembly Costs (# parcels) 0
Environment al Condition of Site
Contamination No
Eco-sensitive No
Socio/Economic
Compatibility
Neighbours NonRes
300-m setback available Yes
Operating Hours Restrictions No
Major Local Opposition No
Likely Job Impact Greatest
Planning Issues None
Topography
Railway Level Yes
Natural Physical Impediments
Major Physical Impediment 1 None
Major Physical Impediment 2 None
Other Physical Impediments None
Geotechnical acceptable Yes
Access
Trucking
New Highway Interchange Required No
Local Access Road Reasonable Yes
Rail
Major Structures Required No
Right of Way Reasonable Yes
Terminal Configuration Loop/Thru
Utilities
Communication/Electrical Yes

Water/Gas/Sewer Yes
Location
Trucking Partners
Distance to Customer Epicenter km 0
Railway
Existing Switching at Location (y/n) Yes
Distance to Port km 0
Terminal
Wind restrictions None
While the exact variables change from project to project, the key parameters are listed
below to compile a complete description of site characteristics.
5.2 Description of Characteristics
5.2.1 Property
The size and shape of properties is a key characteristic to protect the long-term plans for
terminal growth. This basic planning is essential when developing new terminal sites.
While variances in the size and shape can be acceptable in some circumstances, given
the number of ‘greenfield’ sites under consideration in this study, particular attention was
devoted to ensure only those sites that met the minimum site size were selected.
The zoning of a particular site is one issue which may shortcut much local opposition
and therefore reduce the costs to overcome these objections. Under federal regulation,
railway terminals do not have to be rezoned from agricultural, and many existing
terminals across the country are still zoned agricultural. However, surrounding
development of the proposed 100 acres (40 ha) would require rezoning at some time.
Many of the details associated with zoning are dealt with in the Socio/Economic
Planning sections on pp. 26, 37 and 45.
Security is a relative site characteristic and is subjectively ranked 1-10. The ranking is
based on the type of neighbourhood, and whether natural barriers to intrusion exist, such
as lakes, highways, etc.
5.2.2 Acquisition
Land Value is a relative cost between sites. The decision to expropriate is based on the
relative cost as compared to negotiated price and, more importantly, time. The city and
other levels of government have the right to expropriate where necessary, but only after
due consideration to political process. This can represent a significant cost in dollars and
time. In situations where many pieces of property have to be dealt with, expropriation is
more likely to be required.
Assembly Costs can also be significant where a large number of parcels are to be
purchased without expropriation, requiring coordination of agents and lawyers and
lengthy negotiations.
In order to capture all relevant acquisition costs, various compensable heads of claim have
been adopted which are contained in the Nova Scotia Expropriation Act, which are:

a) The ‘Market Value’ of the property, which is defined as: ‘The amount that would have
been paid for the interest if, at the time of its taking, it had been sold in the open market
by a willing seller to a willing buyer.’
b) Injurious Affection has two components. First, the reduction in value caused to the
remaining land of a partially dispossessed owner, and second, such ‘personal and
business damages’ which result from the taking.
c) Disturbance damages, which typically include the costs, expenses and losses in moving
to other premises. If they cannot practically be estimated or determined, an allowance not
exceeding 15% of Market Value can be made.
d) Special Economic Advantage is a term which captures value-to-the-owner incidental

to the use or occupation of the land.
e) Costs, including the legal, appraisal and other costs necessarily incurred by the owner
for the purpose of asserting a claim for compensation, are reimbursable.
5.2.3 Environmental Condition of Site

The environmental condition of the site is not to be confused with environmental impact
and mitigation plans for the intended use of property as an intermodal terminal. This part
of the evaluation strictly involves site environmental issues involving two basic physical
conditions:
1) Existing environmental contamination of the property based on former use can add
significant cost. Since most intermodal terminals provide a hard seal above subgrade,
they can be very effective in reducing serious leaching where difficult contamination has
occurred.
2) Eco-sensitivity is the identification of rare species, habitat and a wide range of

investigations of the site, including archaeological material.
Other environmental evaluations also involve looking at neighbourhood compatibility

issues covered in the Socio/Economic Planning section below.
5.2.4 Environmental Impacts of Project
The project team completed a screening level assessment of environmental

considerations for each option based on existing data, study team knowledge and limited
on-site review. This screening focused on the biophysical components and the potential
environmental impacts of past and current land uses, to identify environmental
constraints or issues of concern to be evaluated as part of the overall selection process.
In addition, the project team estimated the greenhouse gas implications (GHGs)
associated with each option.
5.2.4a) Biophysical and Cultural Resources
Environmental and cultural resource constraints were determined in part through

overlaying Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (NSDNR) GIS data for

significant wildlife habitats, wetlands and land uses. Significant wildlife habitats were
confirmed through discussions with NSDNR staff.
5.2.4b) Land Use Impacts
To identify potential land use impacts, the project team generally followed the protocols
for conducting a Phase I environmental site assessment. This consisted of a review of
available records, site visits and interviews with individuals knowledgeable about the
sites.
The records review consisted of requesting and reviewing information available from the
Client and government, public and other agencies or parties. Information was reviewed
from the following sources:
Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour's Environmental Registry.
Halifax Regional Municipality.
Service Nova Scotia (aerial photographs).
Government databases and mapping.
Topographic mapping, geological and hydro-geological reports and maps available to

the study team were also consulted to obtain a general understanding of the regional
hydro-geological setting.
The site visit was limited to visual observations made from accessible public areas as
access to private properties was not available. Activities conducted during the site visit
included:
 observation of buildings, infrastructure and surrounding land at the sites (to the
extent possible); and
 observation of the properties adjacent to the sites (to the extent possible) to
assess use, as could be viewed from public lands.
The interview portion of the review consisted of requesting information from available
person(s) thought to be most knowledgeable of the history and operations of the sites
and adjacent lands. Interviews were conducted with these persons to obtain information
relevant to the environmental condition of the sites.
5.2.4c) Greenhouse Gases
In order to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the options, the
project team compared each option using emissions values for various transport modes
published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
5.3 Socio/Economic Impacts
5.3.1 Compatibility
The nature of a potential terminal site’s neighbours can have a significant impact on the
likelihood of a terminal site being politically acceptable. Residential neighbourhoods are

generally not viewed as very compatible with intermodal terminal operations, and are to
be avoided.
The availability of sufficient buffer land surrounding the proposed site is important in
assessing mitigation requirements and estimating ultimate costs. The railways have a
standard 300-m setback requirement for new terminal facilities that has been deemed
appropriate by environmental regulators. Superimposing this setback over a proposed
site provides an idea of the number of residents who may be have to be compensated in
any terminal development. Mitigation may be enough in some cases, with such additions
as earth berms to reduce noise, or directional overhead lighting instead of floodlights. In
other cases, properties may have to be bought and neighbours relocated.
In certain locales there may be hours of operation limits placed on a terminal by local
bylaws, particularly for noise. This might include restrictions to truck or rail activities, or
both, and needs to be examined particularly where plans call for an existing site to be
dramatically expanded.
Opposition is almost always present with new terminal development, owing to a change
in land use. However, major local opposition needs to be anticipated as part of the
planning process and the estimated costs evaluated prior to recommending a site. The
opposition can range from a nuisance factor to a significant delay of projects for months
or even years. The amount of opposition is usually directly proportional to the number of
residents located nearby. Since political opposition tends to require organization, the
wealthier the community, the more effective opposition tends to be. Key to the success
of the terminal acceptance is the political support received by the proponents. While it is
not necessary from a strict railway (federal regulation) viewpoint, it is important that local
planners are able to accommodate terminal plans, particularly if the surrounding lands
are to be developed for related ancillary business.
The likely job impact can play a significant role in gaining community support. Estimating
the overall local impact on jobs and the economy is important, particularly where there is
more than one potential site available, and where employment levels vary.
Planning issues deal with governance, existing official plans and evaluating the
necessary steps and costs in gaining local community support.
5.4 Topography
5.4.1 Railway Level

Mainline on grade
Intermodal terminals are designed to
Terminal on the Level
be flat to avoid the necessity of
securing railcars from rolling while left
on an unload/load track. In this case
the requirements are for at least 4,000
ft (1,219 m) at 0.045% grade for Phase I and 65,000 ft (19,812 m) for Phase II. In areas
where railway lines are on a grade, cut and fill can provide access if there is sufficient
length to allow the terminal to connect back with the mainline. This requirement
eliminates many potential sites because they are too expensive to develop.

5.4.2 Natural Physical Impediments
These include significant barriers such as mountains, lakes and major highways, which
all add to the cost of terminal site construction, or are found to be cost prohibitive.
5.4.3 Geotechnical Acceptability
Local ground conditions are important for estimating overall costs. The operations of an
intermodal terminal require the operation of relatively heavy operating equipment and
therefore considerable subgrade preparation is required. In rare cases, the conditions
may require treatment at an unacceptably high cost.
5.5 Access
5.5.1 Truck Access
Since trucks play an integral part in the operation of intermodal terminals, the ability to
access 100-series type highways is essential. In some cases, new connectors are
required at a significant cost.
5.5.2 Rail Access
The largest expense, besides the distance between the mainline and the terminal,
occurs where major structures are required to be built, for instance to cross major
highways, rivers or other physical obstacles.
In addition, the access line or right of way requires an evaluation of those most
restrictive railway engineering issues, curvature and grade. These two elements render
many proposed sites impractical to access by rail.
5.5.3 Terminal Configuration
This concept deals with the rail access to the terminal for purposes of designing an
operation. There are three basic types of inland terminal access:
5.5.3a) Loop
This permits trains to loop around through a Terminal Complex

terminal and exit the way they came in.
Unload/load pad tracks are double-ended
(that is, access is permitted at both ends of
the terminal). This provides ultimate
flexibility because it allows trains to arrive
from either side of the load/unload pads and
then leave in either direction at the Mainline
connection with the mainline. It may also
solve mainline grade issues.

5.5.3b) Thru
This is second best in flexibility

and permits access to both ends, Terminal Complex
but the terminal is parallel with
the mainline track, permitting
trains moving in either direction
to continue through the terminal.
The advantage of this layout is
Mainline
that it typically requires less
acreage than the loop design.
5.5.3c) Point (or Stub)
This is a terminal which is dead-ended. Pad tracks may be

stub (dead-ended) or not, but there is no running of trains Terminal
through the terminal complex. This is used most often Complex
where there is no physical room parallel to the mainline or
where site property is situated perpendicular to the
mainline and of limited size. Operating costs are generally
highest with this configuration.
5.6 Utilities
The availability of utilities at the site such as communication/electrical, water, gas and
sewerage will affect the capital costs and, potentially, the operating costs of the terminal.
For an intermodal terminal, communication/electrical is essential. Water, gas and
sewerage can be dealt with as ongoing operating costs with local delivery.
5.7 Location
This is one of the key elements of site selection. The operating impact of a location may
render a ‘perfect’ site unsuitable for the project. It is not unusual to find a ‘perfect’ green
site for terminal construction and operating purposes, except its location is too far from a
proposed customer’s base.
5.7.1 Trucking Distance to Customer Epicentre
This is an estimate used in determining the relative overall cost effectiveness of a

terminal. Measured by available highway routes, it is possible that a terminal site that is
more expensive to construct is better from the overall issue of truck transportation costs.
A good example of this is the placement of Schneider Trucking terminals, which are
required by corporate policy to be no more than 1 km off the major highway routes, due
to their high fleet mileage costs.
5.7.2 Railway Distance to Port
This evaluation is critical for the design of the NIT. The further the distance to the
terminal, the higher the cost of transportation becomes. This is particularly true where
the port traffic is driving the shuttle train service. Section 7.0 deals with the shuttle train
in detail.

5.7.3 Wind
Wind conditions may have significant operating consequences for the terminal,
particularly where empty containers are stored. Where no natural cover or protection
exists from winds, limits on container pile heights and/or stacking configurations may be
imposed, requiring more acreage for the same number of containers.
5.8 Site Selection Findings
Seven potential sites were examined and are shown on the map in Figure 5.2:
1. HIT (Richmond Terminal)

2. Rockingham
3. Rocky Lake
4. Oakfield
5. Lantz
6. Milford Station
7. Debert
Figure 5.2: NIT Site Selection

The ideal and/or minimum NIT size requirements were calculated and are shown under
‘Property’ in Figure 5.1. These minimums were derived by taking the predicted future
volumes of NIT and developing a terminal design based on best operating practices.
These practices include minimizing all distances involving both the movement and the
handling of containers, cranes, operating trains and trucks, in order to keep operating
costs low. In addition to the site characteristics, the guiding principles set by the steering
committee were added to the site evaluation process.
NOGO factors were sought to reduce the number of initial sites. These were found at
four sites, which rendered them inappropriate for consideration as indicated in indicated
in Figure 5.3.
5.8.1 Eliminated Sites
Both HIT and Rockingham were eliminated due to their inadequate size and major
physical impediments to expansion. HIT is also located in the middle of a fairly well
developed industrial and residential area, where expansion would be difficult.
Rockingham requires a large amount of fill be placed in Bedford Basin and there are
serious residential concerns in terms of expansion.
Lack of sufficient property, and the inability to achieve rail access due to heavy grades,
eliminated the Oakfield location from further investigation.
Debert was acceptable on all counts but was a ‘perfect site’ in the wrong location, given
the long distance from the Port of Halifax. It was dropped from consideration based on
estimates for train shuttle and trucking costs.
Figure 5.3: Sites Considered

Summary
Sites considered
Guiding Compatible Shuttle
Site Principles Size Expansion Topography Neighbours Distance
H.I.T. No Insufficient Major Cost Good Yes OK
Rockingham No Expensive fill Major Cost Good Mitigation OK
Rocky Lake Yes More Quarrying Nearby Good Mostly OK
Oakfield Yes Insufficient Insufficient Unacceptable Mitgation Fair
Lantz Yes Marginal length Nearby Flood plane Mitgation Marginal
Milford Station Yes Sufficient Nearby Acceptable Mostly Marginal
Debert Yes Ample Good Good Yes Too Far
Legend
NO GO Issue
Issues
No Issue
The remaining three sites did not have any ‘NOGO factors’. However, the Lantz site was
adjacent to a better site at Milford Station, and for mainly topographical reasons, was
therefore eliminated from further evaluation.
This left two sites for considerationg – Milford Station and Rocky Lake. A brief
description of issues and comments follow for each. A summary of site characteristics of
each is provided in Figure 5.14.

5.9 Milford Station Site
This site consists of rolling farm land, with glacial till deposits running as high as 45m
above the Shubenacadie River. The CN mainline follows the river valley. The proposed
site is shown in Figure 5.4. A directory with additional photos can be found in Appendix
D.
This site is situated on the east side of the old Highway 2 in Milford Station and includes
land lying between the road and the Shubenacadie River. Much of the land is farmland
with three operating farms and 16 homes along the road. The site also encompasses the
entrance to the National Gypsum quarry and includes other landholdings of National
Gypsum.
Figure 5.4: Milford rolling hills
5.9.1 Property
Zoning is acceptable for a rail terminal but not for additional development. Zoning in the
rural use designation is based on existing land use, so the AR zone corresponds to
existing farms, and the R4 to mostly forested land.
The plan would be to minimize the impact on local residences by relocating the mainline
to the east, away from residences on Highway 2. This would lessen the number of
houses located within the 300-m setback. There is sufficient room to provide 40 ha of
expansion of the terminal, on top of the 24-ha Phase I requirement. In addition, there are
at least another 178 ha available within the 300-m setback that could be used for
ancillary business development.
The existing rail spur to National Gypsum would be relocated at the new mainline,
shortening its length overall, a change which presents no operational issues. Additional
property for expansion is available, although the elevations would vary depending upon
the amount of cut, particularly if property is developed between the terminal and the
river.

Figure 5.5: Milford Station Concept
5.9.2 Municipal Plan Review
The East Hants Plan dates from 2000. Zoning for the study area includes R4 (Rural Use)
and AR (Agricultural Reserve), in the Rural Use Designation, which is intended to
“protect and enhance the rural landscape by permitting development compatible with the
rural environment” (MPS 6-2). The Provincial Statement of Interest also suggests that
municipalities give priority to agricultural uses (MPS 7-2). There is a swath of land along
the Shubenacadie River that is zoned Floodplain, however the proposed site is set back
far enough from the river that this would not be a constraint.
Permitted uses within the R4 zoning (LUB 7.2.1) include dwellings, structures associated
with agricultural uses, agricultural uses, forestry, local commercial and public open
space. There is no as-of-right provision for industrial uses. The more restrictive AR zone
(LUB 7.3.1) does not permit dwellings and commercial operations, and also does not
provide for industrial uses.
R4 zones may only be rezoned to other residential uses (MPS 1-11); there is no
rezoning permitted in the AR zone. However, C5 (Industrial Commercial) uses are
permitted in the R4 zone by development agreement. Industrial Commercial permitted
uses include manufacturing and industrial uses. MPS 6-2 contains applicable guidelines
for managing development that is compatible with the surrounding rural environment.
Any new industrial use in this area would have to conform to these guidelines. The scale
of the proposed inland container terminal development, and its possible incompatibility
with the surrounding rural and residential uses, would be considered and may be an

impediment for a change of use. The adjacent gypsum quarry activities (actually located
in HRM) would support an application for industrial use.
In the AR zone, non-agricultural uses are permitted by development agreement (LUB

7.3.10), pursuant to an agricultural impact study as outlined in the MPS (MPS15-62).
This study would outline soil capability for agriculture, and examine the agricultural
impact on adjacent farms, the farm community and the East Hants land base. Existing
adjacent non-agricultural uses such as the gypsum quarry, and the presence of poorer
soils in the area would help to support such an application for non-agricultural use.
In summary, there is no as-of-right provision for use as an inland container terminal. The
portion of the study area zoned R4 (the central portion along Highway 2) may be easier,
in terms of zoning, to develop for this use. Its location along the highway and rail line is
conducive for this development. The northern portion and areas closest to the quarry are
currently zoned AR.
5.9.3 Acquisition
The conventional definition of market value contemplates a sale between a willing seller
and a willing buyer. The Milford Station site comprises 22 different landowners with
properties ranging from single-family homes to operating farms. Many of these owners
might be reluctant sellers resulting in the possible expropriation of some or all of the
interests. This in turn gives rise to legitimate compensation claims for business losses,
relocation costs and other monetary losses, all of which will form part of the total site
acquisition costs.
In terms of the compensation to be paid to acquire individual properties, the operating

farms will generate business loss claims under the heading of “Injurious Affection” and
some or all of the homes will generate relocation costs under the heading of
“Disturbance”. There is also a provision in the Expropriation Act to compensate
dispossessed homeowners sufficiently to “put the owner in a position to acquire by
purchase or construction a home reasonably equivalent to that which was expropriated”;
the so-called ‘home-for-a-home’ provision. This usually applies when homes have a
particularly low market value.
i) Land Base Required
The total land base for the terminal, including sufficient land for future service
providers, is estimated to be approximately 600 acres (243 ha) as depicted on the
site plan. This includes property falling within the 1,000-ft (300-m) setback but does
not include any properties on the west side of Highway 2 or on the east side of the
Shubenacadie River.
ii) Buildings and Site Improvements
Most of the properties within the terminal site are improved, with buildings ranging
from modest single-family homes to operating farms. All buildings have been
documented in terms of their apparent use and scale but they have not been
inspected and therefore information on building sizes, physical condition etc. has not
been collected at this level of study. For valuation purposes it is assumed that the

individual property assessments on the Assessment Roll include all buildings and
improvements.
iii) Restrictive Covenants, Easements, etc.
Any encumbrances that might be registered against the individual properties have
not been investigated since it is beyond the scope of the report. All properties have
been valued free and clear of any encumbrances.
The properties that together make up the terminal site are currently zoned (by land
area) as follows:1
 45% AR (Agricultural Reserve Zone)

 45% R4 (Rural Use Zone).
 10% HF/MF (Floodplain Zone).
 Less than 1% C2 (Highway Commercial Zone)
iv) Prior Sales and Marketing History
The investigation into prior sales activity was restricted to research of MLS (Multiple
Listing Service) data and was incorporated into the valuation exercise according to
its relevance. Some of the properties, however, may have been listed for sale or sold
within the past three years without discovery.
v) Valuation
In conclusion, no environmental contamination was uncovered in this exercise.

However, there have been no specific investigations in this regard. The sites have
been valued on the assumption that they are environmentally ‘clean’.
A schedule summarizing the market value and other compensable heads of damage is
included in the Appendix. The opinion of probable acquisition cost for the Milford
Station site, expressed as of 1 May 2005, is in the range of $5.1M–$6.1M.
5.9.4 Environmental Impact
Consideration would have to be given to the protection of the Shubenacadie River as a

water resource (MPS 8-3). The site is located in an area of relatively thick overburden
consisting of moderately stony clay loam till which is considered highly erodible. This till
is underlain by Windsor Group formation rocks consisting of gypsum, limestone, shale,
siltstone and sandstone. The nearby gypsum mine suggests that gypsum is predominant
in this area. Areas in the province where gypsum is close to surface are noteworthy due
to the development of sinkholes that can undermine surface structures. It is not known
whether sink holes are present on the proposed site. There is also a potential of at-risk
species in the proposed project area due to the unique geology of the area.
Based on an air photo review, the history of the project site can be summarized as
follows:
1
The zoning designations of individual properties are on file with Turner, Drake and Partners.

 1938–2003: The proposed site is dominated by farmland, residences and

outbuildings.
 1954: Gypsum quarry and associated structures shown to the east of the study
area, east of the Schubenacadie River. An access road and railway line, which
branches off the mainline to the quarry, are visible in the central section of the
study area.
 1966: A bulk fuel storage plant is visible in 1966 photos (this has since been
decommissioned). Some growth in residential/farm development is evident.
 1983: Additional above-ground petroleum storage tanks are visible at the bulk
fuel storage facility.
 2003: A large tank is under construction at the north end of the site. Contents
unknown.
The proposed site (1 on Figure 5.6) is considered good habitat for several at-risk
species, including Inner Bay of Fundy Salmon (federally protected), Striped Bass,
Gaspereau, and Atlantic Sturgeon.
Figure 5.6: Milford Station Environmental Issues
NSDNR has a mapped wetland (3) adjacent to the access road to the gypsum quarry.
As with a wetland noted at Rocky Lake (below), compensation may be required. NSDNR
has also mapped a habitat of concern at the north end of the site (4) related to floodplain
habitat. Although not confirmed by site-specific investigations, there is potential wood
turtle habitat in the project area.

Records from the Municipality of East Hants show that properties in the study area are
serviced by wells and septic tanks. The Municipality noted that a burial area for cattle is
located north of the access road to the quarry. Provincial records only indicated a former
bulk fuel plant.
Where the proposed project will result in demolition of structures, further assessments
will need to be carried out to determine the potential for asbestos, PCBs, lead, ozone-
depleting substances, mercury and urea formaldehyde insulation due to the age of
several structures. In addition, petroleum storage tanks were observed adjacent to
several structures along Highway 2 and the former Imperial Oil Bulk Plant is located
within the study area. Further assessment would be required to determine the presence
of petroleum hydrocarbons.
Pesticides and/or herbicides may have been applied and/or stored in or adjacent to the
study area. Further assessment is required to determine the presence of these materials
in the study area.
5.9.5 Socio/Economic Impacts
Milford Station is a compatible location with the local community planners looking
favourably upon the project from a potential job opportunities perspective. On the other
hand, due the agricultural context of
the site and proximity of some homes,
some local opposition is to be
expected. Typical mitigation measures
including noise buffers and light
restrictions would be required.
Significant available land for adjacent

development of related industries and
a lower tax base in Hants County than
HRM should attract businesses that
would benefit from significant
community support. In identifying
locations for NIT outside HRM, the Figure 5.7: Shubenacadie Valley
Hants Regional Development Agency

had suggested a terminal location
adjacent to the Shaw kitty litter
manufacturing plant in Milford Station.
Although the consultants reviewed this
site, it was dismissed because of the
preponderance of single-family homes in
the area and its location on the
floodplain of the Shubenacadie River.
However, as the area offered a number
of benefits for NIT, an alternative site
could be located next to the nearby
National Gypsum Quarry.
Figure 5.8: Highway 2 with Typical Residences

5.9.6 Planning Issues
i) Compatibility
The property configuration includes a triangle of agricultural and forested land that
lies between the Shubenacadie River and the CN rail line. A Nova Scotia Power line
runs north-south through the site. Surrounding areas support a mix of well-
established farms, modest single-family dwellings, and the National Gypsum Milford
Quarry.
Most of the adjacent residential development lies along Highway 2, the main north-
south secondary road in the area, which links the East Hants communities of Lantz,
Milford and Shubenacadie. The highway runs parallel to the rail line, on the eastern
boundary of the study area. Residential ribbon development here consists of modest
single-family dwellings, with some small home businesses. These dwellings appear
to be in a range of ages: farmhouses likely over 50 years, small bungalows aged 20–
30 years, some newer one-storey dwellings and mobile homes. There are a few
small homes in one small subdivision on a short cul-de-sac off the highway to the
north of the area. Agricultural land and forest lie behind the ribbon development and
west to Highway 102. A few roads run off the highway to operations such as dairy
farms and horse stables.
The area to the east of the study area (within HRM boundaries) is agricultural,
gypsum quarry land, and forested land. The quarry’s processing plant lies across the
Shubenacadie River from the study site. North of the processing operation, a ridge
overlooks the study area boundary, topped by a road and several dairy farms.
A newer subdivision on Robert Scott

Drive, south of the study area, consists
of modest single-family dwellings, from
new to about 25 years old. This area
appears to be similar to other residential
developments in Lantz, just to the south.
The greatest opposition is anticipated
from residents in the northern part of
Lantz (Robert Scott Drive). Other than
this area, there is not a lot of high-end Figure 5.9: Robert Scott Drive Subdivision
residential development adjacent to the
site. Some residents may look favourably on the terminal for economic opportunities.
Residents are used to the current noise levels on the CN mainline. Moving the rail
line further east may be a benefit in terms of noise levels.
Other than the gypsum quarry, industrial activity near the site consists of a small
plant in Milford, at the northern tip of the area, where the river, rail and road
converge. Shaw Resources manufactures and packages absorbent clay for kitty litter
at the plant. Surrounding the plant, the residential development in Milford is fairly
dense.

ii) Discussions with East Hants Planners
In order to assess the potential of the site, the consultants met with planners from the
Municipality of East Hants. This section summarizes their comments on the site.
The first comment was on the appropriateness of the proposed facility. According to
municipal staff, the proposed NIT is a priority project both for the Hants Regional
Development Authority and East Hants Council. The Municipality will fully support a
future application to construct NIT in this location.
Figure 5.10: Farm Property between CN mainline and Shubenacadie River
As mentioned previously, the planners felt that municipal council would look very
favourably on the inland transportation terminal as a singular economic development
opportunity. Loss of agricultural land, including only two operating farms would be a
minor issue; its impact on adjacent residents would be the larger concern.
Since the MPS was not clear on how the inland transportation terminal use could be
accommodated within the existing plan, the consensus was that the best option
would be to apply for an MPS amendment to put a new designation in place to allow
for the use under development agreement.
The plan amendment process, which would take four to six months, requires the
following: The developer makes a formal application with a site plan, project
description, and related studies, including agricultural impact, transportation, noise
and lighting impact, and possibly air quality. The proposal should also include some
description of how the project would be phased in, and the scope of adjacent
commercial/industrial development anticipated as a result of the terminal’s presence.
To facilitate the process, the MPS amendment and a development agreement could
be crafted simultaneously (although the development agreement would have to wait
for signing until the MPS was approved.)
All owners within 300 m of the site would receive a notifying letter, a staff report and
a questionnaire to gather opinion on whether landowners are in favour of the
proposed development. HRM would also be advised. At least one public information
meeting would take place. A public hearing would be held to present both the MPS
amendment and the development agreement. There are no appeals for MPS
amendments. The development agreement could only be appealed in the case of
inconsistency with the plan; this would be very unlikely.

Since the Shubenacadie Canal Commission is planning to develop a trail along the
river, it would be asked to comment on any proposed development.
iii) Topography
The CN mainline drops 10 m in 2,000 m over the length of the site which means the
terminal will require significant fill on the north end and cut on the south end. Given
the glacial till nature of the area this should not pose major construction issues. At
least three streams cross the study area and drain into the Shubenacadie River.
These are not seen as significant problems. The proposed site is not in the
designated floodplain area (MF zoning) of the Shubenacadie River.
A further consideration noted in the MPS for the Milford area is Karst topography,
which poses a risk of subsidence due to sinkholes (MPS 8-4). This may impact on
site development, but currently there is no detailed mapping for this particular site.
iv) Road Access
Highway 2 provides good local road access adjacent to the site. There are several
locations along the highway where an appropriate truck entrance could be made
onto the site. Highway 2, however is not well-suited for truck traffic, with numerous
residences located along its length, although it is currently a truck route. The two
main areas of concern in getting the development approved locally would be dealing
with the volume of truck traffic created by the terminal and its impact on neighbouring
residents. To avoid either the village of Shubenacadie to the north or Milford to the
south, a new connector to Highway 102 could be constructed due west of the site,
keeping in mind the truck traffic to and from this terminal would not provide the
normal volume of traffic to warrant an interchange.
An interchange on Highway 102 close to the site would be preferred over routing
trucks along Highway 2 past residential developments in Lantz. The Department of
Transportation and Public Works is currently looking at constructing an interchange
in Lantz, south of the proposed site. They might be willing to consider moving the
interchange north or adding another interchange to service the Milford site.
v) Utilities
Electricity is readily available. Municipal drinking water is drawn out of the river
upstream of the site. Water and sewer servicing in the Enfield-Elmsdale-Lantz district
stops at Robert Scott Drive. Therefore, wells and septic containment would be used
at the terminal.
5.10 Rocky Lake Site
The study site is located on Rocky Lake Drive, a secondary road that connects Bedford,
Lower Sackville and Waverley, and runs along the southeast shore of Rocky Lake. CN
currently serves an industrial siding adjacent to the entrance to the Municipal Group
Quarry. This area of the yard would be expanded to the north.

5.10.1 Property
Zoning is compatible with a quarry immediately to the east of the site. The Industrial
areas of Bedford as well as Burnside Industrial Park are nearby. There is good
separation between the residential sections to the west side of the lake. No residents live
within the 300-m setback. The study site, most of the adjacent quarry lands, and the
community of Lakeview lie in the Shubenacadie Lakes plan area of HRM (plan date
1988). The Bedford Industrial Park and some of the quarry lands lie in the former Town
of Bedford plan area.
There is sufficient space for 24 ha with some excavation of rock. In addition there is
another 40 ha of expansion room with additional levelling of rock hillside. Furthermore,
there is at least another 55 ha of adjacent property that lie within the 300-m setback and
which could be used for ancillary business development, although it is unclear how much
would be required with Bedford and Burnside industrial parks nearby. The unserviced
study site is currently zoned I-3 (light industrial), which permits, among other uses,
warehousing, service industries, light manufacturing, assembly or processing, and
wholesale operations. There are restrictions within the I-3 zone on open storage and
landscaping, in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses.
Figure 5.11: Rocky Lake Site

5.10.2 Acquisition
This site forms part of the quarry owned and operated by Municipal Enterprises
Ltd. and Sovereign Resources Inc., a related company. There could also be a
new rail line constructed around the northern shoreline of Rocky Lake over lands
owned by L. Archibald Holdings Ltd.
i) Total Land Area Required

Terminal Site:
Approximately 120 ha including the 300-m setback.
Terminal Rail Line:
Corridor approximately 1,800 m x estimated width of 30 m = 6 ha (rounded). However,
acquisition of the rail line will sever the rest of the land from Rocky Lake, thereby
diminishing its value. This represents “Injurious Affection” in compensation terms.
ii) Building and Site Improvements

Terminal Site:
There are two existing commercial/industrial enterprises on the Terminal Site. First, the
Ambassador RV facility, which is a seasonal operation, comprising a two-storey wood
frame commercial structure and a service garage. Second, the Alpha Chemical facility
which comprises a modern steel industrial building, a small office and rail siding. Alpha
is a distributor of specialty and commodity chemicals.
It is not known what, if any, lease arrangements are in place for these businesses.
Terminal Rail Line:

The parent parcel is used for dynamite storage and it is understood there is a storage
building on site, though not on the proposed railway alignment. However, there is an
entrance gate and driveway along Rocky Lake Road which will probably have to be
relocated outside the railway alignment.
iii) Restrictive Covenants, Easements, etc.

All of the encumbrances which might be registered against the lands have not been
investigated since it is beyond the scope of the report, but a significant Building
Restriction Covenant was registered on part of the Terminal Rail Line parent parcel
in March 2005 in favour of Sovereign Resources Inc. Essentially, it prohibits the
owner (and its successors) from building on any of its land within 600 m of Rocky
Lake Road, which includes approximately one-third of the Terminal Rail Line
corridor.
Current Zoning
Terminal Site: I-3 (Light Industrial).
Terminal Rail Line: H-1 (Hazard)
iv) Prior Sales and Marketing History
Sovereign Resources Inc. acquired part of its landholdings in February 2002 (including
the open pit quarry on PID #40255689) and the rest in March 2005 from L. Archibald
Holdings Ltd. The later sale was based on a price of $3,000 per acre. No other sales,

listings, options or other agreements on these lands within the past three years have
been found.
v) Valuation
No evidence of environmental contamination has been uncovered;

however, there has been no specific investigation in this regard. The sites
have been valued on the assumption that they are environmentally ‘clean’.
The opinion of acquisition cost for the Rocky Lake site, expressed as of 1 May 2005, is
in the range of $1.5-$2.2M. It is anticipated that an exposure time of 12 months would
be required to achieve this price if the property were put on the market for sale.
5.10.3 Environmental Impact
The Rocky Lake site is located adjacent to an area of thin soils and extensive rock
outcrops. Soils, where present, consist of sandy loam. Bedrock geology consists of
greywacke, slate and schists of the Goldenville formation.
Based on the air photo review, the history of the project site can be summarized as
follows:
 1931: The site was undeveloped and forested.

 1967: The quarry is present near the south end of Rocky Lake and Rocky Lake
industrial park has been constructed.
 1982: Siding and laydown area at Rocky Lake Quarry under construction and
several structures present.
 1982 – 2003: Continued development of Rocky Lake Quarry and adjacent quarry
as well as Lakeview residential development west of the site.

Figure 5.12: Rocky Lake Environmental Issues
NSDNR mapping shows “Significant Wildlife Habitat” in the small pond at the south end
of the proposed terminal (Figure 5.12, 1b). This has been designated due to localized
waterfowl use and is not expected to deter site development. NSDNR has also mapped
one wetland that lies within the footprint of the proposed terminal (3b). The significance
of this wetland has not been determined and a wetland evaluation would be required to
assess the full extent of mitigation required. This mitigation, in general, would consist of
a form compensation for the wetland loss. At present, compensation is negotiated with
NSDNR and Environment Canada on a case-by-case basis. As well there is a small
pond (4) potentially within the footprint of the project. This may be considered fish habitat
and further assessment would be needed to confirm its status.
No at-risk species are known or documented in the immediate vicinity of the site.
The proposed rail line extension around the north end of Rocky Lake will require the
crossing of two small watercourses. Neither crossing presents a constraint to the project,
assuming standard watercrossing measures are employed. Each will require approval
from Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour (NSEL).
A review by the Nova Scotia Museum indicates that a registered archaeological feature
is located in the vicinity of the proposed Route 2 realignment. Based on current mapping
for the project this feature will not likely be impacted. This would need to be confirmed
during detailed design.
A review of provincial and municipal records was carried out for the site. Provincial
records available from NSEL include several approvals related to the operation of the
Rocky Lake quarry but no records were obtained concerning the project site.

Similarly, no municipal records were on file concerning the site; however, HRM mapping
shows the lands to the north of Rocky Lake (former CIL lands) as a ‘Special Area’ on the
generalized future land use mapping. The land use by-law specifically identifies these
lands as Hazard due to its previous use for explosives manufacturing. Further
assessment would be required to delineate the extent of impacted land and the risk to
the construction and operation of the proposed rail line.
Given the age of some of the structures on the site, there is potential for the exposure of
asbestos, PCBs, lead, ozone depleting substances, mercury and urea formaldehyde
insulation if structures are to be removed. Also, petroleum hydrocarbons may have been
used and stored on the site given the industrial and commercial use of the area. Site-
specific environmental assessments would be required to determine the presence of
these materials. However, if these are present, they are expected to be manageable.
A potential barrier to a change of use relates to water quality concerns in lake areas.
Comments in the MPS regarding industrial developments in the Rocky Lake area
indicate there is some concern with water quality in nearby lakes; no sewer servicing
exists in this area and residential communities are nearby. The Rocky Lake watershed is
also noted in the MPS as a priority area for storm drainage master planning. This stems
from the historic use of the Waverley area for mining activities, and the resulting
deposition of heavy metals (arsenic and mercury) in the bottom sediments of lakes in the
area. Large volumes and corresponding rates of runoff, such as from large areas of
pavement, may re-suspend sediments and release contaminants into the water supply.
With the proximity of Rocky Lake to the study site, it is possible that environmental
impact may be a factor limiting development of the site. Therefore terminal plans would
require containment of water runoff prior to any discharge into the lake. It is worth noting
that the Bedford MPS also makes note of restrictions on industrial development within
close proximity to watercourses or water retention areas.
5.10.4 Socio/Economic
i) Compatibility
The surrounding land uses are heavy and light industrial, resource and residential.
Rocky Lake is one of the headwater lakes in the Shubenacadie watershed, which is
a water supply for many downstream communities.
South and west of the site, industrial uses predominate. The Municipal Group
quarries the southwest mines, and processes and loads quartzite rock for use
around the province. Rocky Lake Drive already carries a large volume of dump
trucks hauling rock.
To the west of Rocky Lake, in the 113 acre (46 ha) Bedford Industrial Park, heavy
and light industrial uses include concrete manufacturing, soil mixing and stockpiling,
firewood stockpiling and some retail sales of recreational vehicles. The majority of
this land has been developed, and there is not much potential for new industrial
development without expanding the boundaries of the Bedford Industrial Park.
CN owns most of the land in this well established, serviced industrial area. The rail
line bisects Rocky Lake and runs across a causeway and along the peninsula
occupied by the community of Lakeview.

The community of Lakeview lies northwest of the site, between Highway 102 and the
north shore of Rocky Lake. The Lakeview Road portion of this area has been
occupied since the mid-1800s, and some residences date from that period. This area
of older dwellings has been infilled with modest single-family dwellings. The newer
portion of Lakeview consists of a large lot subdivision, with water servicing, built in
the mid-to-late 1980s. A small beach park is run by the residents’ association. In a
few places, new construction is evident. Some homes, particularly on lakefront lots in
this portion of Lakeview, are considerably larger than in the older portion.
There are still some areas on Rocky Lake which, although zoned for residential
development, have not been developed. For the most part, industrial uses on the
opposite shore of the lake have not impacted on the visual character of the lake for
Lakeview residents. The study site is screened from the residential area by a
wooded island in Rocky Lake. However, noise from quarry activity and from the
adjacent Highway 102 is apparent even to the casual visitor.
On the northeast shore of the lake are forested lands used for explosives
manufacturing in the late 1800s; the land is still considered hazardous. Zoning in this
area prohibits any activity except explosives storage and related uses.
A small quarry is located behind the site on forested land designated for resource
use.
ii) Planning Issues
Residents’ associations in the area have had a history of opposing an expansion of

industrial uses. The MPS makes note of two occasions on which residents of
Waverley and Windsor Junction/Fall River have expressed concerns over quarry and
industrial development.
In 2004/05 L. Archibald Holdings made an application to HRM for a plan amendment

to rezone the lands immediately north of the CN property from H-1 Hazardous, to R-
1 Single-family for the purpose of building 175 homes. A portion of this property was
previously used to make nitro-glycerine for mining, and the developer proposed to
fence this land off in order to ensure resident safety. Simultaneously, the Municipal
Group made application to the province to extend one of their existing quarry permits
to the border of the Archibald Holdings property. According to HRM planners, there
was very little opposition to the plan amendment from neighbourhood groups, as
most saw the new development as a way to stop the growth of the Municipal quarry
in the direction of the Village of Waverley. This application for a Plan Amendment
was withdrawn five minutes before the start of the HRM public hearing, when the
proponent announced that a deal had been signed to sell the southern property to
Municipal. L. Archibald Holdings still owns the parcel on the north side of Rocky Lake
(i.e., the land the relocated rail line would cross).
iii) Discussions with HRM Planners
In order to assess the potential of the site, the consultants met with planners from
HRM’s Central Region office.

HRM staff confirmed that all the land proposed for the NIT is currently zoned I-3, and
that the existing rail activity on the CN site conformed to this zoning. As such, an
expansion of the CN facility into NIT would be considered an ‘as of right’
development, therefore no planning approvals are required. They also confirmed that
any levelling of the site (i.e., excavation of rock) would be considered site
preparation, and not an expansion of the quarry which would necessitate a quarry
permit from the province.
It was recognized that any site development plan for the NIT should attempt to
mitigate off-site impacts through the use of sensitive design. For example, leaving a
course of rock (i.e., a 4 m barrier) towards the Lakeview neighbourhood would help
stop sound transmission across Rocky Lake.
HRM planners indicated that once the new HRM Regional Plan is adopted, the
municipality will begin the process of revising the 23 secondary plans. As these plans
will be reviewed using a watershed management approach, areas that have an
existing watershed management plan in place will likely be reviewed first. As the
Shubenacadie Lakes Watershed Plan (1992, Vaughan Engineering) covers Districts
14 and 17 (Waverley/Fall River), this work will form the basis for the new area plan,
and this area is likely to be one of the first to be reviewed. This raises the potential
for a future change in land use. However, since the development can proceed ‘as of
right’, it was recommended that the proponent apply for a development permit before
the start of this process, thereby ensuring the ability to develop the NIT. Although this
permit is only good for a period of two years, it can be renewed before its expiration.
Given the potential for area residents to argue for a change of land use around
Rocky Lake during the public hearing process associated with the future plan review
(i.e., re-designate the land from I-3 to R-1), it was suggested that HRM regional
planners include several regional statements about the importance of good
transportation/rail linkages to the future economic potential of the Port of Halifax.
Providing these statements would allow HRM planners to maintain the I-3 zoning in
the Rocky Lake area, as NIT would provide regional benefits to the municipality (e.g.
increased port activity, decreased truck traffic on the Peninsula).
iv) Topography
The topography is level as it follows Rocky Lake. A large hill to the east of the lake
provides a significant rock barrier for part of the length. Since the land is owned by
the quarry owners, it may be possible to excavate this section to reduce the rock
removal costs.

Figure 5.13: NIT Phase I Site Location
v) Access
Road
The site has excellent access to Highway102. With the proposed Burnside Drive
extension, the site becomes very close to Burnside Industrial Park, which houses the
largest group of intermodal customers in the Halifax area. Rocky Lake Road already
handles numerous trucks.
Traffic capacity on nearby Duke Street may become an issue as a local developer
has plans to build a three-arena recreation complex as well as housing behind CP
Allen High School. The proponent is currently seeking a Plan Amendment in order to
allow this project to proceed. The implication for the NIT is that this development may
erode the capacity of Duke Street to handle truck traffic. Should future truck traffic
need to use this street to access the NIT, congestion could be a problem.
Rail
Three streams cut across the proposed rail route and terminal site, although none
warrants major structures.
The site has the ability to provide some additional potential for consolidation of rail
activities in the Halifax area should CN decide to do so. A new junction could be put
in at the northeast corner of Rocky Lake at the end of the proposed terminal site if
CN were to reroute its mainline around the north end of Rocky Lake. This would
shorten the Dartmouth Subdivision by some 2.5 miles (4 km), avoiding four existing
crossings plus the residential areas of Waverley. In addition, it could render the line
across Rocky Lake redundant, freeing up valuable lakefront for existing residential

property on the west shore. The potential also exists to consolidate the CN
Dartmouth Yards, HIT, CN Fairview Shops and the majority of CN Rockingham
yards. These yards would provide significant real estate value in future years.
vi) Utilities Electricity is present at the site. No water or sewerage is presently

available, although they could be extended from Bedford Industrial Park.
Figure 5.14 Summary of Site Characteristics

SITE CHARACTERISTICS NIT Milford Station Rocky Lake
Property
Size (ha) 24 28 24
Minimum Width (m) 115 120 115
Minimum Length (m) 2000 2500 2000
Expansion (ha) for adjacent development 45 45 + 175 other 45 + 55 other
Agricultural, needs to
Zoning Non residential Yes Resources, Industrial
be rezoned
Security Ranking (1 – 10) 10 is the best 10 10 8
Major Structure Relocation Required No No No
Major Demolition Required No No No
Acquisition
Unknown * Depends upon
Land Value $M 0 $7
Municipal Group
Estimated Expropriate Costs $M 0 Likely to be required Not likely required
Assembly Costs (# parcels) $M 0 22 owners $0.5 0
Environmental Condition of Site
Contamination No No Minor Contaminants
No – Normal
Eco-sensitive No Runoff into Rocky Lake
mitigation
Socio/Economic
Compatibility
Non Residential,
Neighbours Mostly Non-residential
Res Agricultural
11 residential units
300-m setback available Yes Yes
within 300 m
24 hour trucking may
Operating Hours Restrictions No No
be issue
Major Local Opposition No Some Some
Good for local
Likely Job Impact Greatest Some job creation
economy
Planning Issues None No major issues No major issues
Topography
Railway Level Yes No but workable Yes
Natural Physical Impediments
Major Physical Impediment 1 None None Rock Hill
Major Physical Impediment 2 None None None
Rocky Lake runoff
Other Physical Impediments None None
containment
Geotechnical acceptable Yes Yes (preliminary) Yes (preliminary)
Access
Trucking

New Highway Interchange Required No Yes No

Local Access Road Reasonable Yes Marginal Yes
Rail
Major Structures Required No No No
Yes
Right of Way Reasonable Yes Yes
Terminal Configuration Thru Thru Thru
Utilities
Communication/Electrical Yes Yes Yes
Water / Gas / Sewer Yes No No
Location
Trucking Partners
Distance to Customer Epicenter km 0 42 6
Railway
Existing Switching at Location (y/n) Yes No Yes
Distance to Port mi 0 33 9
Terminal
Wind restrictions None None None
5.11 Site Selection Summary
The key factor is the distance from the Port of Halifax. Based on the site characteristics,
Rocky Lake has the major advantage of location with reduced distance to the port and
Burnside.
The site selection process can be summarized as follows:

Figure 5.15: Site Selection Summary
Rocky Lake Site

Pro Con
Proximity to Burnside Cost
Fits into long term area use Some local opposition
Distance from Halifax Higher construction cost (depending
Least operating cost upon Dexter)
Least backhaul miles
No residential relocation Higher taxes
Access to 100-series highway
Opportunities to combine more Rail facilities
Milford Station Site

Pro Con
Size of Property Available Not in HRM
Construction cost may be lower Distance from Halifax
More backhaul
Higher operating cost
Lower taxes Less opportunity to combine rail facilities
Lesser risk of inclusion into ILA jurisdiction Reduces agricultural land
Residential relocation
Poorer access to 100-series highway
Figure 5.16: Site Selection Process
Category Quarry Site Milford Station

Property X X
Acquisition X
Zoning X X
Land Value X
Topography X
Environmental X X
Neighbours X
300-m Setback X
Road Access X
Rail Access X
Halifax Planning X
Location X
Construction Cost X
Operating Costs X
Rail Opportunities X

6.0 NIT Concept
6.1 Description of the Conceptual Terminal Layout
i) Phase I Design
The terminal is configured to follow the shoreline of Rocky Lake to take advantage of
the level grade and existing quarried areas to minimize the amount of rock
excavation required. An aerial view of the proposed first phase of the terminal
designed to handle the local market share of 525,000 TEUs through the Port of
Halifax is shown in Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1: NIT Phase I
The entrance to the terminal is located off Rocky Lake Drive, north of the CN
overpass. Relocating the existing roadway to the east side of the proposed terminal
takes advantage of the existing grade separation over the CN mainline at the south
end of the terminal, thereby avoiding a new crossing of the CN line further to the
north. A sense of the height of the rock hill that exists in this area is evident in the 5-
metre contour map of Figure 6.2. As can be seen, the terminal cuts into the large
hillside that runs mainly parallel and to the east of Rocky Lake. This hill is cut into as
much as 60 ft (20 m) above railway grade. This would normally add significant cost
to the terminal construction, but based on the information received from the
Municipal Group, such excavations are within the normal consumption of its quarry.
Three factors will assist in offsetting the anticipated excavation costs. First, the
excavation could form part of the normal material for operations. Second, the sub-

base in the area is bedrock, providing a much more stable subgrade than soil, thus
reducing the amount of aggregate required. Third, any crushed stone required will be
available on site, thereby reducing transportation costs. In order to reduce
excavation quantities, Rocky Lake Drive could also be designed and built with a
significantly more aggressive profile than the railway infrastructure, passing along the
hill at a higher elevation.
Furthermore, depending upon road planning initiatives in the area and the proposed
connector to Burnside, Rocky Lake Drive could be relocated even further to the east
or disconnected entirely.
Figure 6.2

Figure 6.3: Winnipeg Intermodal Terminal
Phase I of the terminal layout includes two 4,000 foot (1,219 m) long
loading/unloading tracks on either side of the container stacking area. The proposed
plan and section views for Phase 1 are shown in Figure 6.4. The container stacking
arrangements shown in the plan are for illustration purposes only; however, there is
sufficient room to accommodate the normal peaking population of 3,302 TEUs,
based on an average stack of two high for loads, and three high for empties. The
sections show the stacked arrangements of a typical pile of empties placed in a
stepped fashion to maintain stability of the overall piles, while loaded container piles
are limited to three high. Similarly, empty container stack piles are grouped into rows
of up to eight deep, while loaded containers are limited to groups of six deep. This
minimizes the double handling of containers that typically results when ‘digging out’ a
container ‘buried’ deep in a pile.
Since the terminal is well sheltered on the east with the large hill, it is anticipated that
wind would not have a significant impact and containers could be stacked as much
as five high if required. The restrictions on loaded container piles are due to crane
lifting capacities and the increased likelihood of requiring a dig for a specific
container, as opposed to simply taking the next available empty. The number of
empty stack piles will depend upon the type of empty, owner and number of
containers. State-of-the-art container yard inventory tracking/logistics tools are used
to minimize crane travel distance and multiple handling of containers. As part of this
approach, stacks are a mixture of loaded and empty piles to gain advantage of real
time inventory control. During periods of exceptional peak demands, up to 33% more
loads and empties could be handled, but at higher operating costs due to more
secondary container handlings.
Access lanes for moving cranes from one side of the container stacks to the other (or
from one track to the other) should be spaced at intervals of no more than 1,000 feet
in order to minimize unnecessary crane travel. Truck movements are unidirectional
along each track to allow for maximum safety with minimum roadway width.

Figure 6.4: Phase I Quarry Site Layout

Additional space for support tracks and/or noise berms or retention ponds is
reserved between the mainline and the terminal until such time that final
requirements can be ascertained. Noise mitigation requirements are not known at
this time; however, several islands appear to act as natural berms for the residences
to the west of Rocky Lake along most of the terminal length.
The rail design also includes one service track and an escape lead track at the very
north end for shuttle train power to be able to pull in and run around the terminal
when necessary. As such, Phase I is a stub end terminal design. The service track is
accessed from the mainline at the south end of the terminal via a crossover, allowing
for access by either the shuttle trains or Train 121 which can set off arriving HIT
traffic directly in the terminal. The service track also extends southward about 4,000
feet (1,219 m) from the south end of the terminal, utilizing the existing grade of the
abandoned second mainline track, where it would also connect with the CN mainline.
Use of this abandoned roadbed gains cost-effective trackage for additional switching
capacity, which can be conducted clear of the mainline and avoid interference with
other trains.
At the southeast corner of the terminal

complex, the existing quarried areas will be
used for the truck
entrance/exit area. This
includes three inbound

queue lanes of
five trucks each, and a single outbound
lane. Each lane is equipped with a
computerized gate stand for driver input and directions. Other security and
identification/scanning equipment may be installed at this location as well.
The gate building/administration offices, employee parking, and a small maintenance

facility is in close proximity in this corner area in order to minimize utility costs and
provide a common on-duty point for all terminal employees. Power outlets for
grounded containers equipped with refrigeration units, and 190 parking spots for
containers on chassis and empty chassis (two rows of 11 foot (3.25 m) wide parking
spaces) for CN domestic service would also be located just inside the gate. The
exact footprint will take advantage of existing quarried areas to reduce overall
excavation.
The detailed design process would take into consideration the ultimate user
requirements as well as data from field investigations, such as topographic surveys
and geotechnical condition surveys, hydrological analyses and environmental
mitigation requirements. The final design would include grading, drainage, power,

lighting, mechanical systems plans and specifications, and pavement designs

suitable to the varying loading conditions.
ii) Phase II Design
Phase II is essentially a longitudinal extension of Phase I, as indicated in Figure 6.5.

The throughput volume requirements for Phase II is assumed to be approximately
three times that of Phase I, or about 1.5M TEUs. With excavation reaching depths
near 18.2 m in a few locations in Phase I, the terminal is designed to extend
lengthwise with little additional width. As viewed in the contour map of Figure 6.6, the
excavation still reaches depths of up to 23 m. In order to accommodate triple the
volume, three 2,286 m long loading/unloading tracks are required, with an adjacent
capacity for stacking the equivalent of 9,000 TEUs of containers as well as 390
containers on chassis. Representative plan and cross-section views of the expanded
terminal are shown in Figure 6.7.
6.2 Construction Costs
An opinion of estimate costs for Phases I and II is in Appendix B. Due to the rocky
terrain, the cost to construct suitable storm water drainage and retention systems and
other buried utilities may be significant. These costs may be offset by a reduced
pavement cross-section requirement and the availability of crushed rock for use as
aggregate. Furthermore, should the Municipal Group’s quarry plans be modified to
include the excavation of the proposed terminal area, the rock removal costs would drop
significantly. The overall cost of excavation of this terminal is not expected to differ from
average costs of the other terminals used for the cost estimate shown in Appendix B.

Figure 6.5

Figure 6.6

Figure 6.7

6.3 Operating Costs
Under the NIT scenario, HIT moves all operations to NIT, and all of the operating and
handling costs at HIT are saved. At the port terminals, the handling costs involved in
trucks picking up import boxes for local delivery are eliminated, as are all empty handling
costs and the costs of maintaining a truck gate operation. The costs associated with the
pre-tripping moves for reefers, moving of containers to/from repair areas and the
occasional digging out of a particular empty container are also eliminated from the port
terminal’s costs. Handling costs at NIT include handlings previously occurring at HIT:
import containers into the local market, empty yard moves, reefer pre-tripping and
loading local export moves directly from truck to rail car.
At the port terminals it is expected that virtually all of the import containers coming off
vessels would be able to go directly to a rail car to be shuttled to the NIT. The terminals
in Halifax have the ability to load rail directly from ship; until recently this was the
standard way of operating at both terminals. As part of the normal discharge cycle,
containers are drayed to the correct rail track and directly loaded onto a railcar by a top
lifter working the track, or by a rubber-tired gantry.
Containers not able to go directly to a track for loading would be directed to another area
of the yard for stacking. The concept of the inland terminal relies on the ability to move
the import containers directly to rail both efficiently and reliably. Having a sufficient
number of railcars to provide an available platform at the time the container is
discharged from the vessel is critical. The estimated operating costs include a captive
fleet of railcars sufficient to ensure that containers are loaded directly to rail.
Generic rule of thumb handling costs per unit were used and applied to the number of
handlings added or saved at each location. The difference in cost by location was further
confirmed by a calculation of the typical manning and equipment requirement to operate
a daily truck gate.
Truck operating costs are very much a function of the geographical location of the NIT.
Cargo distribution and volumes were used to calculate the change in 1,000 truck -
kilometres. Again, a rule of thumb rate was used to calculate savings or additional costs.
In addition to the net transportation distance saved or added, the location of the terminal
also had an effect on the routing of the containers. When routing changes resulted in
driving on a better (faster) road, the calculated savings was based on saving 40 seconds
per truck-kilometre. When the routing changes resulted in driving on inferior (slower)
roads, a delay of 40 seconds per truck-kilometre was used.
The net change of routing was converted into time savings or additional expense based
on a cost of time for the truck and driver of $35 per hour. The calculation also considers
the benefit of improved truck turnaround at the NIT. A saving of 15 minutes per truck call
is used for this calculation at, again, the $35/hr cost of time and equipment.
The cost of additional cars and additional switching required for the shuttle service was
developed based on a ship arrival pattern that creates a peak of two times the average
daily volume, one day per week. This is what would be expected from a random arrival
pattern throughout the week with all major ship calls planned to start at 08:00. In addition
to this switching and rail car rental lump sum, the cost differential of the rail haul itself is

based on an industry average of $0.25 per unit km ($0.44 per FEU mile) of running
costs.
The following table shows the overall savings/costs of a NIT operation at the Rocky Lake
site and at Milford Station. Figures are based on 2004 volumes of domestic and
international containers, and assume the Burnside Connector road is available without
cost to the NIT.
Figure 6.8 Overall Cost / Savings of NIT at Rocky Lake and Milford
NIT NIT
Rate
Rocky Lake Milford Station*
$ per unit Units Cost ($K) Units Cost ($K)
Handlings at NIT
20 206711 4134
(lifts-single handling)
Handlings at HIT
25 -24600 -615
Handlings at Terminals
30 -108205 -3246
Trucking distance
1060 -840 -890
(thousand truck-km)
Trucking time savings
389 -584 -227
(thousand truck-km)
Trucking time (waiting time in hours) 35 -18063 -632
Shuttle switching and railcars

N/A N/A 893
lump sum
Rail haul (thousand unit-km) 250 1080 270
Overall transportation cost increase -313
*Data not released: The comparative data on this site is being withheld pending further
negotiations on the Quarry site.

6.3.1 Transition
The operating savings are based on fully burdened costs, not rates. In some cases, such
as the long haul trucking that is charged on the basis of distance hauled, the transition is
simple and the savings can be realized immediately. In other cases, such as terminal
handling, the existing terminals already have the facilities, equipment and operating
systems to handle at least the present volumes and their immediate savings will only be
the incremental savings of not handling certain containers. At the same time, new
operations such as NIT and the shuttle service will have to charge more than just their
operating costs if they are to be viable.
This discrepancy is likely to represent some $50 per container moved to/from the NIT
and it may be necessary to allow some time for the savings to trickle through the various
rate systems by providing an initial subsidy that would disappear over a period of a few
years.
6.4 Labour Implications
Members of the International Longshoreman’s Association (ILA) handle all the freight
arriving on ships at Halifax’s container terminals. Except for transhipments, containers
are transferred from ship to an inland transportation mode or vice versa. Containers
to/from the local market (the Maritimes, parts of New England and eastern Quebec) are
generally trucked while containers to/from other inland destinations are railed to inland
rail terminals. Members of the Canadian Auto Workers Union at HIT handle domestic
containers.
The concept of a new inland terminal would involve the relocation of all domestic
intermodal activities to a new site and the use of this same site as a new inland rail
destination for international containers. Trucks would no longer call port terminals; even
the containers destined to or coming from the local market would be railed in and out of
this terminal.
All trucking activity would be concentrated at the new inland terminal, including the
storage of empties and the handling of containers targeted for full inspection by
Customs. This means that containers arriving at one of the two ocean terminals, Halterm
and CeresGlobal, would be taken off the vessels, loaded directly to a rail car and
shuttled to this new inland terminal. Presently, on this import cycle, locally-destined
containers are taken off the vessel and stacked in the yard to be picked up by a truck. As
all handlings to and from trucks would be relocated to the new inland terminal, the labour
functions associated with the truck handling activities at the existing port terminals would
no longer be required.
It will still be necessary for the container terminals to load these containers on and off rail
cars as opposed to on and off trucks. The vast majority of these local containers would
be loaded directly to rail from the ships, saving the second handling to truck.
The ILA has jurisdiction over any activities in the longshoring industry occurring within its
geographical accreditation. This geographic accreditation covers all of the Port of Halifax
and has recently been extended to include Autoport, which is situated just outside the
port’s limits.

As the work performed at the inland terminal is not work in the longshoring industry, it
would fall outside the present ILA jurisdiction. It is possible this jurisdiction could be
expanded and the union leadership has already indicated that they are opposed to the
concept of an inland terminal, as it would result in reducing the number of hours of work
of their membership. It is however most likely that the labour affiliation at the NIT would
be determined by the ownership of the terminal, i.e. who operates the shuttle service
and who operates the terminal.
For the purposes of this study, a heavy industrial labour rate of some $20-$25 per hour,
plus 30% fringes was used for labour costs at the NIT. Labour at the NIT would consist
primarily of equipment operations working to a schedule that would be designed around
the work requirement of the terminal while providing 40 hours per week of scheduled
work for the employees. Meal hours and break periods would be staggered to maintain
continuous truck servicing throughout the day.

7.0 Shuttle Operations
7.1 Current Infrastructure
Halifax serves as the

eastern terminus for CN
train operations in Canada.
The route between Truro
and Halifax is known as the
Bedford Subdivision. The
mainline is predominantly
single track with sidings
spaced approximately
every 10 miles (16 km) to
allow opposing trains to
pass one another. Trains
are identified by number,
with odd-numbered trains
operating westbound and
even-numbered trains
operating eastbound.
Approximately 16 miles (26

km) north of the terminus in
Halifax lies Windsor
Junction, where the
Dartmouth Subdivision
joins the mainline. This
subdivision serves the
industrial districts in the
Dartmouth area.
Between Windsor Junction

and Halifax (on the Bedford
Subdivision), over 95% of Figure 7.1: CN Halifax Network (Mile Points)
the rail traffic is container
movements. This section was originally built as a two-track mainline to accommodate
frequent train movements at slow speed due to the steep 3-mile long 1.5% ruling grade
between Bedford and Rocky Lake. In 2003 a hurricane washed out a section of one of
the two tracks near Bedford, which prompted CN to remove the second main track from
mile 7.0 (km 11.2) to Windsor Junction (mi 15.8 or km 25), and rename the remaining
section the Halifax Transfer Track. This section, between mi 4.5 and mi 7.0 (km 7.2 and
km 11.2 km), and including Rockingham Yard, continues to provide CN with the ability to
pass trains when required.
The mainline officially ends at Fairview Junction (mi 5.0 or km 8), which is located at the
east end of Rockingham Yard. The Deepwater Branch connects here, serving CN’s
domestic intermodal terminal (HIT). The former double-track mainline continues as a
single yard track through the cut toward Halifax passing the Chester Spur (mi 4.5 or km
7.24), and is designated as the HOT-Rock Connecting track. CN removed most of the

second track in the cut several years ago, leaving only the portion between miles 2.5
and 1.4 (km 4 and 2.25) to serve as a second yard track for the Halifax Ocean
Terminals. The VIA station is located at mile 0.0 on the Bedford Subdivision.
7.2 Existing Train Service
West of Windsor Junction, trains from both Halifax and Dartmouth sides of the Basin
combine to keep this section fairly busy. At least 12 trains per day move over this
section. East of Windsor Junction, on the Dartmouth Subdivision, general manifest trains
307 and 308 carry autos and other commodities. In addition, gypsum unit trains make
two round trips daily between the National Gypsum dock near Burnside and the East
Milford mine. These unit trains are
numbered U701, U702, U703 and
U704.
Intermodal trains 120, 121, 148 and

149 operate on the Halifax side of
the Basin. Rockingham Yard serves
as the main CN switching yard for
Halifax. Around-the-clock yard
assignments make up outbound
trains, switch inbound trains into the
two port terminals, HIT, as well as
other local industries. Other than
train 121, all freight trains arrive and
depart from Rockingham Yard.
Outbound train 121 originates at
HOT and operates through the cut,
picking up the Ceres and HIT traffic
at Rockingham each evening.
Inbound Train 120 arrives each
morning at Rockingham and then
proceeds to take its domestic
containers directly into HIT for early
morning availability. VIA Trains 14
and 15 operate through the cut over
the HOT-Rock Connecting Track
into the VIA station (mi 0.0).
Figure 7.3 is a summary of CN train

operations over the Bedford
Subdivision in timetable format. Note Figure 7.2: Daily Train Operations
that the heaviest traffic is between
Windsor Junction and Milford Station, where there are only two passing sidings (Kinsac
and Oakfield). The one at Kinsac is also used as a transfer point for Dartmouth
connecting traffic.

Westbound (Read Down) BEDFORD SUBDIVISION Eastbound (Read Up)

149 U703 121 15 U701 307 Mi U702 308 148 120 U700 14
13:05 Halifax 0.0 16:10

18:30 Halterm 0.5
Ar Ceres Dp 6.0
23:15 19:20 Dp Rockingham Ar 7.0 4:30 6:45
Dart- Dart-
mouth Rocky Lake 12.5 mouth
2130 9:00 Windsor Jct 15.6 2:10 13:40
0:25 6:35 Kinsac 20.0 3:30
Oakfield 29.0
Lantz 33.0
22:40 10:30 7:35 Milford Station 36.5 1:00 2:25 3:15 12:30
2:35 21:35 14:30 9:35 Truro 64.0 1:05 2:00 5:20 14:50
Debert 77.0
Figure 7.3: Existing Rail Schedules
7.3 Rail Shuttle Operation
i) Purpose
The rail shuttle has two basic purposes:

a) Conveying locally-destined import containers from the two port terminals to NIT.
b) Carrying local export containers from NIT to the two port terminals.
ii) Requirements
Unlike export containers, which tend to arrive at the Port on a more evenly
distributed basis six days per week, it is the peak demand of the large volumes of
import containers arriving by ship that will drive the capacity requirements for shuttle
operations. It is assumed that local market containers discharged by ship on any
given day must be available for pick-up at NIT early the following morning. The ability
to move the containers to NIT within this 24-hour window is paramount to making the
rail shuttle operation a success.
Grounding of import containers at the port terminals is to be avoided, due to the

relatively high handling costs on dock as compared to NIT. Therefore, sufficient rail
cars need to be on hand in order to meet a target of no more than 10% grounded
import units per week. With a typical large vessel discharge of 500 containers, 34%,
or 172 containers are for local distribution. Figure 7.4 describes a generic daily rail
car demand distribution to move local containers to and from NIT.
Railcar requirements are predicated on using a double stack (DS) car fleet that is
captive to the shuttle service. A rail car length of 64 ft, with a gross load weight of
165,000 lb (74,842 kg) per platform has been used in this calculation. It is assumed
that a peak of two large ships or 344 local destined containers would need to be
discharged one day per week at Halifax.

In keeping with the requirement for next-day availability, the target is to move the 344
local containers to NIT by shuttle within 12 hours. This scenario would allow for an
occasional third ship to be handled within an 18-hour period. By extension, and
assuming extra rail crews were available to operate the shuttle, it could be possible
to handle as many as four large ships within a 24-hour period, provided these cars
could be recycled back to the port.
Figure 7.4
Daily Port Railcar Dem and
160
140
120
Railcars
100
80
60
Import Demand
40
Export Demand
20
-
Day1 Day2 Day3 Day4 Day5 Day6 Day7
Figure 7.4 indicates the relative cars required on a seven-day cycle. The demand for
railcars is greatest on a day when there are two ships.
Since yard and train crews have limits on their daily hours of work (12 hours by law;
8 hours before overtime), the length of time per shuttle run impacts the number of
crews and their cost. With a two-terminal port operation, a shuttle from Halterm
would be required to stop at CeresGlobal (using Rockingham Yard) enroute to NIT.
Similarly, on the return trip a stop at Ceres with export traffic would be required. In
addition, with the split port terminal operation, railcars will have to be moved back
and forth between the terminals in order to prepare for ship discharge at either
terminal based on demand by day of week. Sufficient cars will need to be kept at NIT
during daytime hours Monday through Saturday to allow live loading of exports from
truck directly to rail, in order to avoid additional handling costs at NIT.
Having sufficient cars on hand at NIT, Ceres and Halterm at any given time will
therefore be the logistics challenge. This is achievable provided that the switching
support that exists at the port terminals today continues and is utilized to support the
shuttle service. This will take a high level of control and co-operation as well as good
information flow in order to position railcars ahead of ship arrival. The operational
viability of the shuttle lies in the ability to match the positioning of railcars to load
demand and location, while handling the peak volumes during the week.

7.4 Distance to NIT
Determining the least number of dedicated railcars required for a shuttle fleet will depend
upon whether railcars can be cycled more than once in a 24-hour period. This will be
greatly affected by the distance between NIT and the port. Keeping NIT within a distance
where shuttles can be operated by local ‘yard’ crews working an 8-hour shift with the
ability to make immediate adjustments, will maximize shuttle flexibility. Longer distances
may require crews to become dedicated to single train movements. Returning crews
from NIT without rail cars becomes cost prohibitive if NIT is too far from the port,
whereas if it is kept within a 15-mile radius, it may be relatively easy to reposition crews
as required.
Figure 7.5 shows the rail distances between various sites and the port terminals. Note
that a shuttle round trip to Milford Station represents a distance of 72 miles (116 km)
from Halterm, while a round trip to the Rocky Lake site represents only 24 miles (39 km).
Figure 7.5
RAIL DISTANCE CHART Windsor Milford

(miles) HIT Halterm Ceres Rockingham Quarry Jct Oakfield Lantz Station Debert
Site Mileage 3.5 0.5 5.0 6.0 12.5 15.8 29.0 33.0 36.5 77.0
HIT (equivalent) 1 3.5 0.0
Halterm 0.5 6.0 0.0
Ceres (Fairview Jct) 5.0 1.5 4.5 0.0
Rockingham 2 6.0 2.5 5.5 1.0 0.0
Quarry 3 12.5 9.0 12.0 7.5 6.5 0.0
Windsor Jct 15.8 12.3 15.3 10.8 9.8 3.3 0.0
Oakfield 4 29.0 25.5 28.5 24.0 23.0 16.5 13.2 0.0
Lantz 5 33.0 29.5 32.5 28.0 27.0 20.5 17.2 4.0 0.0
Milford Station 6 36.5 33.0 36.0 31.5 30.5 24.0 20.7 7.5 3.5 0.0
Debert 7 77.0 73.5 76.5 72.0 71.0 64.5 61.2 48.0 44.0 40.5 0.0
Comparing the Milford Station and Rocky Lake sites, and referring back to Figure 7.3,
the round trip to Milford Station uses the busiest sections of mainline west of Windsor
Junction, and requires moving over 58 miles (92.8 km) of single track. Conversely, the
Rocky Lake site requires only traversing 10 miles (16 km) of single track between miles
7.0 and 12.5 (km 11.2 and 20), and moves over a less busy portion of the mainline.
Mileage costs increase with distance, and overall reliability of the service tends to
decrease as distance increases due to the greater risk of delays. These delays can
occur because of weather, operational congestion, maintenance, accidents, etc.
Therefore, as a fundamental shuttle principle, rail distance to NIT should be minimized
for increased operating reliability, notwithstanding all other location factors. The value is
in moving containers from expensive on-dock areas to the nearest suitable site where
storage space is available at a reasonable price, and distribution facilities are close by.
7.5 Shuttle Schedules
There are several trades-offs that must be evaluated in determining the best schedule
for the shuttle. Distance is a major factor, made even more important by the following
considerations:

1. Number of Railcars: Fewer railcars are required for the shuttle if they can be
cycled more times in a 24 hour period.
2. Number of Shuttle Crews: The fewer the crews, the less the operating cost.
3. Number of Shuttles: With more shuttles comes the flexibility of using those crews
to move empty rail cars and easier adjustments to the plan for positioning rail
cars for the next day.
4. Size of Shuttle: The longer the shuttle, the slower the schedule will be.
Movements over 2,500 ft (2,286 m) should be avoided unless the distance to NIT
is very long. The shorter the distance, the shorter the length of a shuttle
movement.
7.5.1 Rocky Lake Schedule
By examining the running times from the port terminals to Rocky Lake, it can be
shown that a three-hour round trip is possible. Figure 7.6 shows a typical shuttle
schedule.
Figure 7.6
Rocky Lake Shuttle
Westbound BEDFORD SUB Eastbound

S7 S5 S3 S1 S2 S4 S6 S8
18:30 15:30 12:30 9:30 Dp Halterm Ar 0.5 12:05 15:05 18:05 21:05
18:55 15:55 12:55 9:55 Ar Ceres Dp 5.0 11:40 14:40 17:40 20:40
19:20 16:20 13:20 10:20 Dp Rockingham Ar 7.0 11:15 14:15 17:15 20:15
19:35 16:35 13:35 10:35 Ar Quarry Dp 12.5 11:00 14:00 17:00 20:00
Sufficient time is provided to pick up and set off the cars at Fairview Cove in either
direction, provided local switching support is still available at both of the port
terminals to make the actual switch on and off the dock, and assuming sufficient
track is provided at NIT to handle the import traffic without additional switching.
A single 8-hour shuttle crew could perform the first 2½ trips to NIT (S1, S2, S3, S4
and S5). Note that Rocky Lake is close enough that a crew may return to
Rockingham quickly by taxi if necessary, so crews could change shifts at NIT as well
as the port. A second shuttle crew would be required to perform the remaining
shuttles for the day (S6, S7 and S8). It is very important to note these are generic
schedules based on a 3-hour cycle and that, on certain days, no shuttle may be
required, while on other days, one or two shuttles may operate, while all four round-
trips may be required on occasion. These would depend upon the day of week and
the positioning of cars.
When the proposed shuttle schedules are overlaid with the existing train schedules
there is relatively little interference, as indicated in red in Figure 7.7. Note that Train
121 and Shuttle S7 are the only real conflict, and this does not pose a serious
schedule problem. For example, S7 could be rescheduled for an 18:45 departure.

Rocky Lake Shuttle and Existing Schedules Combined

Westbound BEDFORD SUB Eastbound
149 U703 S7 121 S5 15 S3 S1 U701 307 U702 308 148 120 S2 U700 S4 14 S6 S8
13:05 Halifax 16:10
18:30 18:30 15:30 12:30 9:30 Halterm 12:05 15:05 18:05 21:05
18:55 15:55 12:55 9:55 Ar Ceres Dp 11:40 14:40 17:40 20:40
23:15 19:20 19:20 16:20 13:20 10:20 Dp Rock’ Ar 4:30 6:45 11:15 14:15 17:15 20:15
19:35 16:35 13:35 10:35 Dartmouth Quarry Dartmouth 11:00 14:00 17:00 20:00
2130 9:00 Windsor Jct 2:10 13:40
0:25 6:35 Kinsac 3:30
Oakfield
Lantz
22:40 10:30 7:35 Milford Sta 1:00 2:25 3:15 12:30
2:35 21:35 14:30 9:35 Truro 1:05 2:00 5:20 14:50
Debert
Figure 7.7
7.5.2 Cycling Impacts
It is recommended that the dedicated railcar pool be divided into sets, which can be
easily identified and organized. This would allow operating personnel to relate to
them, either by name or number, so that the shuttles would not be viewed as ‘just
another yard assignment’ with various cars, but as regularly scheduled movements.
The shuttles need generic, easily remembered schedules for consistent plan
execution, whether or not they operate on any particular day. Operating to a planned
window is more consistent than ad hoc scheduling.
Based on the proposed shuttle times, it would be possible to cycle the operation on
the following load/unload sequence shown in Figure 7.8. This diagram shows three
sets of railcars and their cycling via a shuttle operation between NIT and the port
terminals. NIT is represented with two unload/load (called pad) tracks. The letters L
and U represent actions of Loading or Unloading railcars. For simplicity, the port is
shown as one pad and one hold track, but would in actuality represent both Ceres
and Halterm pad and hold tracks. In this scenario, the dedicated fleet would be
broken into three sets of equipment. The colours red, blue and green signify these
three sets.

3 Cycles with Rocky Lake Shuttle Using 3 Railcar Sets (Red, Green, Blue)
Time =>6:00 11:00 14:00 17:00 20:00
NIT L L U&L U&L U
Load Track 1
Load Track 2 T122
Enroute S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
PORT L L U&L U&L U
Load Track
Hold
Time => 8:00 9:30 12:30 15:30 18:30
Figure 7.8: Load and Unload Sequence
Note that two sets of railcars always start at the Port in the morning to continue
loading from the vessel, even as one set is moving toward NIT. The third set will start
at NIT each morning. Switching is indicated by green boxes (other yard assignments
at the Port) and yellow boxes (shuttle switching at NIT). Train 122 is shown in yellow
since it would occupy part of the NIT pad with domestic rail cars, as it does today at
the HIT terminal. Outbound Train 121 domestic container traffic for CN would be
taken to Rockingham (similar to today’s yard move) for departure on 121 by the
17:00 shuttle.
The thick arrows represent sets of cars that are unloading and loading. The dotted
lines represent decisions regarding railcar positioning with the last shuttle as required
for the following day, although this could happen on any particular cycle. Minimizing
the unnecessary movement of railcars is important in keeping operating costs low.
Figure 7.8 shows three cycles of equipment – each set of rail equipment cycling
once. This requires six one-way shuttles to accomplish (Shuttles S1–S6). Each set of
equipment cycles as required based on the volumes unloaded at the Port. Sufficient
rail cars are placed at NIT to ensure that the loading of truck exports continues ‘live’
as they arrive.
Should additional containers need to be moved, additional shuttles S7 and S8 can

be added on certain days of the week as shown in Figure 7.9. This allows individual
peaks to be handled without the necessity of adding more railcars in order to handle
these peak volumes.
Figure 7.9: Rocky Lake Shuttle

4 Cycles with Rocky Lake Shuttle Using 3 Railcar Sets (Red, Green, Blue)
Time => 6:00 11:00 14:00 17:00 20:00 22:00
NIT L L U&L U&L U&L U
Load Track 1
Load Track 2 T122
Enroute S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8
PORT L L U&L U&L U U
Load Track
Hold
Time => 8:00 9:30 12:30 15:30 18:30 21:00 23:00

This pattern could be extended to more shuttles into the overnight hours (S9 & S10
– not shown) should exceptional circumstances warrant. The extra cycles provide a
large degree of flexibility in meeting peaks without the cost of having additional
railcars available on site.
Figure 7.10 describes the railcar demand for import and export container traffic and
the supply of railcars based on the number of cycles those railcar sets perform
daily. With the ability to cycle three sets of rail equipment, each with about 38 cars,
a total of 113 rail cars are able to supply the demand at both the port and NIT
except for the import peak discharge of 150 containers one day per week. This
peak demand can be accommodated by cycling one set of cars one extra time (i.e.,
a fourth round-trip shuttle for that one day). In this way, the 113 railcars provide the
equivalent of having 150 cars each cycling just once, without having to lease
additional rail cars. The benefit of utilizing an extra crew for this move once a week
is more economical than leasing additional cars yearly, by a factor of about 4:1.
Furthermore, two extra shuttle cycles in exceptional circumstances allow 113
railcars to handle the equivalent of 188 railcars cycling only once.
Figure 7.10
Rocky Lake Shuttle using 3 Railcar Sets

Daily Railcar Demand & Supply Effects of Cycles
Import Demand
200
Export Demand
150
R ailcars
Supply based on 3 set cycles

100
50
-
1
y4
y6
7
ay
ay
ay
ay
ay
Da
Da
D
There are limits to the effectiveness of this additional cycling. While it may appear
better to have five shuttles each day to reduce the number of railcars on lease, the
additional train crews that would be required for extra shuttle moves more than
three days per week would cost more than the savings realized by using fewer
railcars. Thus for occasional peaks, extra shuttles are an economical solution, but
not for a typical day’s volume.
With the Rocky Lake site shuttle, there is flexibility to respond economically to meet
shipping peaks on an as-required basis, ensuring that less than 10% of import
containers would be grounded even on peak days at the port.

7.7 Other Rail Considerations
CN has the potential to consolidate much of its operations at the Rocky Lake site.
Dartmouth Yard, Rockingham Yard, Fairview Shops and HIT are all facilities that could
be combined in this area. It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss the details or
potential benefits, but redevelopment of real estate and consolidation of assets are two
that should be investigated.
As a first step, CN may wish to look at the relocation of HIT to the Rocky Lake site as a
precursor to the full-sized NIT. Sufficient area is available at this site to permit this type
of operation without significant rock excavation. If combined with an empty yard, it could
serve as a first step to protecting this site for future intermodal development.
7.8 Conclusion
The Rocky Lake site is close enough to the port to allow flexibility in equipment cycling
and scheduling in order to handle peak volumes and the reality of late ships, without
adding significant operating cost. This distance impact is best described by comparing it
to the Milford site, which did not provide the ability to cycle railcars in order to handle
peak volumes, resulting in operating costs which were estimated at more than double
those of the Rocky Lake shuttle. In addition, the Rocky Lake shuttle avoids the busiest
segment of mainline operations around Halifax, providing less interference, more
flexibility and reliability of service.
Over the long term, the shuttle costs should remain relatively constant as port volumes
increase. The peaks will fill in, making better use of existing railcars. Longer shuttle
trains will only incrementally add line haul costs. Thus, the shuttle will become more
cost-effective per unit moved as volume grows.

8.0 The Railway Cut Truckway
8.1 Vision
Prior to the Halifax Explosion on 6 December 1917, all rail traffic into Halifax followed the
northern shore of the peninsula to the narrows, and then roughly the alignment of
Barrington Street to the North Street station and further south into the downtown.
Following the devastation of the Explosion and the rebuilding effort that was undertaken,
the rail line was re-routed to the present rail cut, partly as a make-work project and partly
to relieve the congestion caused by the rail lines in the downtown area.
The railway cut, which for the purposes of this discussion can be seen as a link between
the Bayers Road/Bi-High entrance and the Ocean Terminals, can be looked upon as an
underutilized transportation resource within HRM. A number of studies have been
undertaken in recent years to determine what other uses could be made of the cut in
addition to present railway uses. The route is illustrated in Figure 8.1.
8.2 Existing Right of Way
The rail cut is essentially a double-track facility, with much of the second track removed
from service. A number of issues present themselves if trucks and other traffic are to co-
exist with present rail uses. An ideal solution, from a transportation planning point of
view, would be to connect the Bicentennial Highway to the rail cut with continuous two-
way traffic to and from Lower Water Street. This would provide direct truck access to the
Ocean Terminals and commuter access to the downtown via an expressway that would
remove a considerable volume of traffic from west- and south-end streets.
However, this use would present serious cost and environmental implications. To the
casual observer, the cut may appear to be as wide as a two-lane road when, in fact,
each track takes far less width than a normal one-lane road for two reasons. First,
railways require no shoulders or pull-off areas for bypassing disabled traffic. Second, a
railway car’s lateral movement is less than 2 inches (5 cm), while trucks typically require
4 ft (1.2 m) or more of clearance for steering adjustments.
In order for a two-lane highway to be built, CN would have to agree to a joint

management or operation of the roadway. CN has stated it will work with HRM on an
arrangement for trucks in the cut, but the interference of train operations, but paving over
the single track to create a combined track and roadway is unacceptable to them
because it will interfere with train operations. Therefore, one track would be required to
be physically separated by a concrete barrier from any roadway configuration.
The previous engineering studies indicate the cut is generally wide enough to provide a
single lane right of way, with a partial shoulder, for a cost of about $40M. This includes
widening 50% of the cut from 38 ft (11.6 m) to about 50 ft (15.2 m), plus the price of a
new bridge spanning Chebucto Road (photo 11 in Appendix D) as well as additional
clearances for Bayers Road (photo 14). The $40M includes a single-lane road but no
shoulders would be configured under the other 12 bridges or where electrical towers are
located directly to the south side of the cut in about 10 locations. This estimate appears
reasonable given the minimal extent of engineering analysisundertaken in those studies.

Figure 8.1: Map of Rail Cut
If a two-lane highway were to be constructed in addition to the remaining track,

calculations show that it would require a cut width of 77 ft (23.5 m) for approximately
50% of the length, as well as the rebuilding all 14 bridges. This would be at a cost much
higher than the $40M estimate. The bridges are now over 80 years old and may be at
the end of their useful life in any case.
8.3 Environment
The cut would have to be widened in a number of locations and the environmental
issues would need to be addressed. It is possible that CN could widen the rail cut as a
matter of right, providing it was done without the need to apply for a blasting permit.
Most rock removal in Halifax is now undertaken with hydraulic breakers and this
technology could be applied to the widening of the rail cut.
8.4 Design
The detailed costs of building a roadway would also vary, specifically based on the type
of use and operator liabilities. The route could theoretically accommodate three types of
potential traffic, truck, bus and private vehicles, but each has a different environmental
impact and different benefits. The cut would provide trucks with an alternative route,
which would appear to be at least environmental beneficial. Buses would benefit from
faster transit times, but the actual numbers of commuters and time saved would have to
be weighed against the cost. Finally, private cars could avoid city streets enroute to and

from downtown, but a full environmental assessment of the impact of encouraging the
free flow of vehicles into the downtown core would be advisable.
While a one-lane roadway has significant operational disadvantages as compared to a

two-lane design, there are four major reasons why the one-lane option is appropriate:
1. CN has stated it will not agree to paving over the track to make room for a
second lane, in order to protect its ability to operate rail movements without
delay. It is agreeable to discussing the removal of the remaining service track
that remains in the cut, but only on a commercial basis.
2. Were CN to consider, in principle, the idea of paving over one track, several very
real engineering issues remain in an open cut scenario. Unlike enclosed tunnels
that were cited in the previous study, the rail cut is fully exposed to the elements.
Snow removal is problematic with few areas to plow or pile snow. The likely
solution would be to pick the snow up and take it out of the cut by truck, at a
significant operating cost and potential disruption to traffic. As well, ice can build
up in flangeways with heavy trucks continually compressing snow. While there
are both operating as well as engineering solutions to this, given the length of the
cut, it would add considerable cost to the truckway estimate. Any solution that
increased any risk of derailment next to the road, albeit marginally, would be
unacceptable to both CN and HRM.
3. Further, different uses and types of traffic require different minimum standards
and access planning. For example, private trucks could be ‘licensed’ to move on
the route as private property at their own assumed risk. A pass would both
restrict access at entrance points, and track the use for a toll fee. By removing
public participation from the cut, the costs could be kept in line with estimates.
On the other hand, a public thoroughfare built on private property would require
incorporation of safety standards equivalent to those for provincial roads, which
would add to the costs. Bus-way requirements would also require significantly
higher safety standards than a private truckway. A one-way traffic lane allows for
the typical provincial road standards to be more easily accommodated in the
design, making the road accessible for a number of uses, rather than just trucks.
If only trucks are permitted, using the south side of the track may be suitable.
However, if buses or public access is permitted, flyover connectors and
additional access points may have to be added.
4. The present study addresses the use of the cut by trucks only. But transportation
planners in HRM may want to consider the utilization of this resource in the
broader context of traffic problems on the peninsula and access to the peninsula.
There is sufficient property in the CN Fairvew Shops area, or with the impending
closure of the Chester Spur at Joseph Howe Drive, to provide relatively easily
engineered on and off ramps for the truckway. Obviously, any route should
provide good access to Highway 102 near the Bicentennial Highway and good
access to the MacKay Bridge.

8.5 Truck Issues
8.5.1 Operational Design
In terms of operating the rail cut as a truckway, the following assumptions are made:
a) There would be single-lane, one-way traffic. The rail line operation would be
unaffected and no portion of the rail line would be within the truckway. A
schedule for directional changes and a procedure to accomplish that safely
would be developed with the stakeholders. The flow schedule would become well
known and adhered to.
For example:
2130 to 0900 Southbound
0930 to 1200 Northbound
1230 to 1500 Southbound
1530 to 2100 Northbound
b) All trucks doing business at Halifax Ocean Terminals, including container

transport and break-bulk transport vehicles, would be required to use the
rail cut.
c) 53% of the Halifax Ocean Terminals’ truck movements would be eliminated from
the downtown core.
The following advantages and disadvantages of the truckway are noted:
Advantages
 All trucks to and from Halifax Ocean Terminals would use this facility;
 There are no legislative obstacles;
 There would be a significant reduction in downtown truck traffic;
 There would be a reduction in truck transit times, although not in distance;
 The top end of the truckway is close to Highway 102;
 There is little or no impact on rail operations during construction or
operation.
Disadvantages
 One-way traffic will be an inconvenience;

 The capital cost of $40M cannot be justified based on the operational
savings;
 Local opposition is already in evidence and can be expected to be well
organized, well financed and vocal;
 There is no improvement in the port’s capacity;
 Snow removal and winter operating conditions may present problems;
 A breakdown of a vehicle on the truckway could shut down the entire
route;
 Limiting access and security enforcement may be an ongoing problem.

8.6 Rail Cut vs. NIT Concept
The utilization of the rail cut for truck traffic as described, and the development of the
NIT accessed by rail, are concepts that address different but overlapping truck issues.
The NIT will remove 100% of the intermodal truck movements from downtown and the
Rockingham/Bedford area, whereas the rail cut will remove 53% of all the Halifax Ocean
Terminals area truck movements from downtown.
The rail cut provides overall savings of $141,000 per year, as set out in Figure 8.2,
mainly as a result of the reduced driving time which more than offsets the increased
trucking distance. Even if the $141,000 saving in trucking costs could be recaptured
through a user fee, it is not sufficient to amortize the $40M capital cost associated with
this option.
Figure 8.2: Rail Cut Economic Advantage
$ per unit Units Cost ($K)

Trucking distance
(thousand truck-km) 1,060 4 4
Trucking time
(thousand truck-km) 389 -374 -145
Overall transportation cost increase -141
Individual infrastructure projects taken out of context with the master plan are not
necessarily intended to be self-financing. If the project were to proceed, the following
steps would be required:
 The rail cut needs to be widened in order to accommodate the truckway. This
could and should be done without blasting, in order that the CEAA permitting
process will not be triggered. As the major use of the rail cut will still be rail traffic,
the project can proceed as of right.
 The Halifax Urban Greenway Association, which is trying to create a hiking,

jogging, cycling path along the CN lands, would probably press for an
environmental assessment, which should be done in any case. The
environmental positives will probably balance the negatives.
 HRM plans are inconsistent as to the zoning of the railway cut and as to land use
thereon. The cut should be consistently zoned and perhaps should have its own
special transportation zone designation which would prohibit the construction of
further homes on the available land, particularly on the west side of Beaufort
Avenue. It should be recognized that the zoning would not necessarily prevent
the development of the land as it is under federal jurisdiction, but a transportation
zone from Bayers Road to the Ocean Terminals, properly worded, would in the
long term facilitate the utilization of this space for uses compatible with
transportation.

8.7 Environmental Issues
The use of the rail cut as a truckway or as an additional vehicle expressway to the
downtown area should be the subject of a detailed environmental impact assessment.
There will be positive and negative events in the environmental risk profile.
It would appear that there are no significant habitat or cultural resources that would be
causes for concern.
 There may be contaminated soils but the rail bed is built on bedrock and very
little overburden exists in the cut other than the ballast for the rail line.
 There will be an improved local air quality in the downtown area as a result of the
removal of 53% of the truck movements to and from the Halifax Ocean
Terminals, but a concomitant reduction in air quality along the rail cut.
 Concerns over the air quality and noise issues regarding the utilization of the
railway cut as a truckway need to be addressed.
The rail cut does not provide shorter distances to the downtown, but does change ‘stop
and go’ city driving to expressway driving conditions. The following table shows typical
distances from a number of destinations to and from Halifax port terminals.
Figure 8.3: Driving Distances to Port Terminals
Burnside Bayers Other Truro Valley South

Lake HRM Shore
Halterm 15 13 4 110 125 106
Rail Cut 14 17 13 109 128 109
8.8 Road Safety
While always an important issue, the safety of truck traffic on the dedicated one-way
roadway in the rail cut can be achieved with reversals of flow and inexpensive control
systems.
The flow would be reversed using a set of gates operated with a single key. As the gate
was lowered to stop traffic flow in one direction, the key would be retrieved and the cut
would be swept to ensure that all vehicles have passed through the cut to the gate at the
other end.
The same key would then be used to open the gate from the new direction, with the key
remaining captive until the next change of direction.
All traffic would be monitored with surveillance cameras mounted on existing bridges
and all stalled or broken down vehicles would be towed. In addition, regular policing
would be put in place to control access and further enhance security.

8.9 Conclusion
The biggest challenge is to justify a $40M or more expenditure against the quantified
benefits. This subject will be dealt with more fully in the next section.

9.0 Economic Analysis
This section of the report provides an analysis of the costs, benefits and overall
economic impacts of the proposed development options. With the reduction in truck
traffic in downtown as the main purpose behind this study, the specific options under
consideration include the development of a NIT and the separate project of the
dedicated truckway through the rail cut. The resulting overview of benefits and costs
associated with the proposed trucking options is based on a comparison of these
alternatives:
 Status Quo;
 Build a NIT;
 Use the rail cut as a truckway;
9.1 Status Quo
Under the status quo, current trends are tracked to identify, for example, the point at
which the HPA facilities will need to be expanded or recapitalized (through fixed capital
redevelopment or through a more significant equipment replacement/update). Under this
option the projected capital and operating costs associated with development options
are saved but this fails to provide for increased efficiencies/economies associated with
the development and, likewise, does nothing to forestall capital expansion of HPA
facilities which would otherwise be necessary to increase throughput and remain
competitive. The underlying assumption is that the current trend in port growth will
continue.
From HRM’s perspective, this option does nothing to abate the current traffic congestion
in downtown Halifax and, in fact, places HRM on a path to increased traffic congestion
as the port continues to grow in its handling of container cargo. From the perspective of
the HPA, the status quo does not create a problem as such, but it does not provide the
port with any provisions for the future. If the limitations of current port capacity are left
unchanged and there is no provision for increased capacity, growth in port traffic
becomes constrained.
Opportunity costs associated with this option suggest that a continuation of growth in
port traffic will necessitate an expansion in some combination of increased port terminal
area (for marshalling and lay-down area) and/or through the addition of more capital
equipment. ‘Doing nothing’ and not preparing for this eventuality may lead to ‘reactionary
development’ that involves a comparatively higher cost alternative (i.e., the development
of a new waterfront facility, the redevelopment of a higher cost transportation route
through the city’s core, the acquisition of higher cost lands for an inland terminal, and the
location of an inland terminal that is less optimal than site options that are available
today). Thus, with the natural evolution of the terminal, the ‘status quo’ is not quite a ‘do
nothing’ option.Rather, it is an option to do something later when the timing is more
critical and the remaining options are likely to be significantly inferior to those available
now.

9.2 NIT
The second option results in the construction of a NIT, located to maximize surface
transportation options and link to the HPA area through rail service. The research
conducted in earlier tasks led to the selection of a candidate site near Rocky Lake in
Bedford. The site was selected through a multi-criteria analysis where data on traffic flow
estimates, trip origin, destination of truck traffic servicing the port, land development
costs, zoning and land availability, and other factors were considered.
As a quasi-greenfield development, Rocky Lake will allow for an optimal inland terminal
configuration that is expected to increase the overall capacity of the HPA system by
250,000 TEUs per year through releasing land and improved trucking efficiency. The site
also provides a unique opportunity to integrate planning with subsequent expansions of
the Burnside Industrial Park (based on the proposed Rocky Lake location).
9.3 Truckway
Under this option the CN railway corridor is redeveloped as a truck route running from
Fairview Cove to Halterm. This would be shared with the existing rail traffic, albeit with
controls in place to ensure compatibility of flows.
9.4 Framing the Benefit / Cost Analysis
In this section the issues relevant to the project options are identified, including the
context for the analysis, the perspectives of the proponents and other stakeholders, the
conceptual range of expected benefits from the improved truck routing and the
anticipated costs.
i) Context: Multiple Project Proponents
Having multiple project proponents for a comparative assessment of project

alternatives creates a methodological challenge in that the benefits and costs that
accrue to each stakeholder do so in varying amounts in each option. The challenge
in this analysis is to present a relevant frame of reference so that the costs and
benefits faced by an individual proponent are treated appropriately in the wider
analysis, i.e., address the net, system-wide distribution of effects under each option.
In the analysis, it is the system-wide effects that are discussed as the final result
since they represent the aggregate benefits and costs faced by each individual
proponent through the distribution system that allocates these benefits and costs.
Effectively, this netting together of benefits and costs at the system-wide level can
create a case where the greatest net benefit to one stakeholder can ‘compensate’
net losses of another stakeholder. Described differently, the analysis is
unconstrained and a dollar of benefit for one proponent effectively compensates a
dollar loss incurred by another proponent, even though the individual entities within
the system can face disparate individual net outcomes.

ii) Purpose and Proponent Goals
The use of the rail cut as a dedicated truckway and the separate development of a
NIT are projects that are intended to mitigate a number of challenges faced by the
HPA, HRM and CN. Accordingly, each project proponent has its unique
reasons/purposes that led to the present study. These purposes, expressed as either
a problem to be solved or an opportunity to be realized, include:
HRM Objective – Diversion of Truck Traffic:

o The problem of traffic congestion and the desire to divert truck traffic from
downtown city streets and improve traffic flow and use of downtown streets,
as well as the notion that the railway cut is an underutilized transportation
corridor for road and/or rail use.
o The opportunity presented by the railway cut as an underutilized
transportation corridor, for rail and/or road use
HPA Objective – Operational Efficiency and Growth:

o The problem of expansion and the need for room for growth to remain
competitive,
o The opportunity to improve the effectiveness of the operations at HPA,
o A growth opportunity to improve and increase transload and distribution
activity within the region,
o The opportunity to improve productivity and space utilization at container
terminals by providing more of the terminal space for transhipment and
outbound activity and use the inland facility for local/regional/continental
distribution.
CN Objectives – Operational Efficiency and Growth:

o The opportunity to improve efficiency of rail service,
o The opportunity to provide short haul rail service.
In considering these individual purposes, it is clear that HRM’s motivation is more

about ‘problem solving’ in relation to the downtown traffic management, while CN’s
and HPA’s motivation has more to do with the ‘opportunity’ created by the two
options being considered to divert truck traffic.
iii) Defining the Stakeholders
The stream of positive benefits that are anticipated from the diversion of truck traffic
include improved efficiencies in traffic flow, truck access, the reduction in negative
externalities, and longer term benefits through increased capacity and related
opportunities (and/or more effective use of existing capacity). The costs are expected
to include the financial burden to do this, the negative impact or increased truck
traffic in areas where there is presently much less truck traffic and the associated
noise and impact on area residents.
iv) Inventory of Expected Benefits
There is a range of benefits flowing from the direct objective of removing/reducing

truck traffic in downtown Halifax and providing a dedicated truck/container

transportation route in the rail cut or NIT option. The methodology applied includes
the following main benefit and cost components:
a) Benefits – A quantitative assessment of the benefits that have been identified

and associated with each option. Benefits are categorized as positive increases
in efficiencies or decreases in costs or negative externalities (such as abatement
of pollution through less fuel consumption and reduction in traffic congestion).
There are two levels of benefits addressed – those with readily
available/identifiable monetary values, and those that are more qualitative – and
these are described as:
o Benefits with Monetary Value – quantified based on major assumptions
from the engineering/estimating steps conducted earlier.
o Qualitative or Conditional Benefits – more nebulous and consequently
less easily quantified aspects of the cost/impact assessment developed in
this section using case study analyses and, in particular, the experiences
of the consulting team with similar transportation projects. 2
b) Costs – Financial and Non-Financial: A quantitative assessment of the costs is

identified and associated with each option. Life-cycle-cost analysis is used to
present all costs that have been identified under the following categories:
o Initial or Development Costs – (e.g., site costs – acquisition, land
amalgamation, relocation of displaced land owners, road alignment, etc;
planning costs – design and engineering costs, construction costs). Costs
would include site-related rehabilitation/remediation that may be
necessary in each option to release land for other uses, e.g.,
removal/relocation of rail services;
o Operational Costs – those associated with ongoing costs of operating the
facilities under the various options (labour, financing costs, equipment
costs, etc.);
o Rehabilitation Costs –those that may be associated with capital
replacement over the life of the project and are beyond routine/annual
maintenance activity, such as the replacement of a breakwater or the
rehabilitation of the wharf face;
o End of Project Costs – in this case, the salvage value of the facilities at
the end of the project life;
o Opportunity Costs – the value of the resources used in a given option
contrasted with their ‘best’ alternative use and, for the most part, implicitly
dealt with in the comparison of the ‘rail cut’ and ‘NIT’ options.
c) Input-Output Analysis – a level of analysis separate from the benefit cost

approach, this economic analysis tool is used to model the direct, indirect and
induced economic impacts from the project and operational spending associated with
the preferred development scenario.
2
Benefits in this category include opportunity for more optimal use of downtown city streets for parking and
other light commercial service/retail operations located along the present trucking routes. Such items can be
assessed through Hedonic pricing and Contingent valuation (willingness to pay) approaches, both or which
are relatively data intensive approaches. These are identified in the analysis but only assessed to the
degree that leads to confidence that they arise and the data are present to measure their influence.

Estimates used in this analysis have been derived from the study effort highlighted
above in developing construction cost estimates under alternative scenarios,
operating cost estimates, and estimates of fuel consumption and travel times, among
other data points. Further details of the methodology are discussed throughout the
analysis to highlight specific assumptions concerning benefit and cost estimates, the
manner in which the data are considered and other factors.
In addition to the effects on proponents and stakeholders, the non-commercial

stakeholders include:
o Owners of private vehicles:

 Increased mobility for private vehicles in the city core,
 Reduction in stop-and-go miles traveled,
 Increased ease of mobility for private vehicles operating within the
city core,
 Net benefit to private vehicles from:
 Efficiency/gains in productivity – less travel time to and
from work,
 Fuel savings,
 Travel time savings (i.e., shorter transit times resulting
from improved traffic management)
 Reduction in vehicle operating cost savings – improved
access results in less vehicle damage/wear and tear and
better fuel efficiency.
 Auto operating/ownership cost savings,
o Pedestrians:
 More streets conducive to walking.
Landowners (direct, adjacent/abutting property owners):

o Property owners/residents in the downtown core:
 Opportunity to provide more retail street frontage (becomes more
appealing as retail use) in former truck route areas,
 Reduction in noise impact along downtown streets,
 A more efficient use of lower value inland parcels – less demand
for land that may otherwise be necessary for industrial/commercial
development in the urban/downtown area,
o Property owners/residents along the rail cut:
 Negative – Increased noise level,
 Negative – Vehicle emissions,
o Property owners/residents near proposed NIT site:
 Added value to commercial sites in the Burnside area,
 Relocation of rail from residential area to open lake frontage,
 Negative – Noise Level,
 Negative – Lighting,
 Site preparation,
General Public:
o Public/Environmental/Health & Safety:
 The effects of truck trip redistribution on the generation of
greenhouse gases,

 Reduction of vehicles idling as a result of fewer traffic

conflicts = lower emissions,
 Lower emissions as a result of more efficient short-haul
transport,
 Improvements to motor vehicle safety through the elimination of
conflicts with the truck traffic (Property) - Fewer truck/vehicle and
truck/pedestrian incidences particularly on congested downtown
city streets,
 The mitigation of risk associated with transporting hazardous
materials.
o System-Wide Transportation Management & Planning Benefits:

 Benefit to improved road and rail facilities that will enhance the
movement of goods within this key trade corridor (more
competitive service),
 Expanded efficiency of the Burnside area (new highway
connection).
Conceptually, the costs will include:
Financial Costs
o Initial or Development Costs:
 site costs – acquisition, land amalgamation, relocation of
displaced land owners,
 road alignment, etc;
 Planning costs – design and engineering costs; and construction
costs).
 rehabilitation/remediation that may be necessary, e.g.,
removal/relocation of rail services;
o Operational Costs:
 Labour,
 Financing costs,
 Equipment costs, etc.;
o Capital/Rehabilitation Costs:
 beyond routine/annual maintenance activity;
o End of Project Costs:
 salvage value of the facilities at the end of the project’s life
Non-Financial Costs
o Landowners along transportation routes see increased traffic,
o Property owners/residents along the rail cut face Increased noise level,
vehicle emissions,
o Loss of ILA jobs with move to NIT.
Turning from the theoretical to the applied, data limitations will inevitably drive what
is and is not quantified and therefore what forms the benefit cost analysis. For
example, using a quantitative approach, the study attempted to consider the impact
to property owners in terms of municipal taxation and real estate values. Following a

review of assessments and the areas impacted, it was not possible to identify the
market influences that would drive assessments in one direction or another.
Considering that homes abutting the rail cut are currently on an active rail line, the
question becomes “will more rail traffic or truck traffic in a below grade cut affect
property values that have been established with the cut already in place?” In
discussions with real estate experts on the study team, it was the consensus that this
would not be an appreciable change; these properties are located along a
transportation corridor that has existed for 80+ years. The value of the real estate as
set by market transactions over these many years would naturally account for all
attributes of the property. It is indeterminate if increased traffic in that corridor would
affect values. A survey or similar analysis could be conducted to resolve this point.
The reduction in truck traffic downtown would improve the traffic situation there, but it
was not possible to determine whether property values along the affected streets
would rise. These properties are on major transportation routes in the city’s core
which would still be used by (some) trucks, although the opportunity for more
automobile traffic may result in additional retail opportunities and this may boost
property values.
Finally, the proposed location of the NIT and the realignment of the rail line would
provide waterfront property for some landowners in the area of Rocky Lake and
remove waterfront property from another parcel of land. The net effect is once again
indeterminate because the land given over for the new alignment will have the value
of this waterfront land reflected in the sale price of the property. As to the newly
created waterfront parcels abutting the rail line that may be removed; will they own
the land or will CN retain this right-of-way, in which case the land owners then have a
linear trail along the front of their properties.
9.5 Options Considered
Although there are basically three options being considered, the analysis was expanded
to include combinations of options. This was done to address various growth scenarios.
The options include:
 Status Quo – ‘do nothing’
 Build NIT
 Build NIT and New Ocean Terminal (NOT)
 Build NOT w/o NIT
 Truck Use of Railway Cut.
Status Quo: The ‘do nothing’ Option – Under this option, the HPA system-wide
capacity is fixed at 900,000 TEUs and nothing is done to address either truck traffic or
the growth that may be expected at the port. This option does nothing to:
 Address truck movement through downtown;
 Improve port operations; or
 Improve port capacity.
Build NIT – The construction of a NIT at Rocky Lake is presented as the next option.
Under this option, the HPA ocean terminal capacity is given a 250,000 TEU boost so
that the combined system capacity would be 1,150,000 TEUs.

The estimated cost for this facility is $56M. It will have the benefit of eliminating
intermodal truck traffic by diverting it to short-haul rail shuttle service, but will result in
other costs such as increased handling, switching and rail km.
The Burnside Connector between NIT and Burnside reduces the truck-kilometres
between the HPA system and the local and regional source and end points for cargo.3
This option does not improve the system capacity offered by the NIT (i.e., the capacity is
1,150,000 TEUs) but it does improve the savings to truckers.
Build NIT and NOT – The NIT and NOT Option is presented to consider what may
follow the development of the NIT when the system capacity provided by the NIT is
exceeded. Under the NIT and NOT, combined system capacity becomes1,700,000
TEUs through:
 Current 900,000 TEUs
 NIT 250,000 TEUs
 NOT 550,000 TEUs
The capacity contribution of the NOT is estimated at 550,000 TEUs levered from
synergies within the system when it is built (assumed to include the NIT as well as the
current capacity). The site/infrastructure costs required to provide this capacity boost are
somewhat less than those required to provide the same capacity boost on a single site.
Accordingly, the estimated cost for the NOT is lower ($225M compared to $300M).
Build NOT w/o NIT – This option is presented to contrast the impacts of this path of
development with those that have been considered. The effect of the NOT is to provide
an additional system-wide capacity of 550,000 TEUs. The main difference between this
and the Option with the NIT is that this capacity is provided on one site (rather than
having any synergies with the NIT, for example). As a result, the combined system
capacity reaches 1,450,000 TEUs (current capacity plus the NOT; 900,000 TEUs +
550,000 TEUs) but at a higher cost than the NOT Options with NIT. The NOT option by
itself is estimated at $300M while the NOT with NIT is estimated at $225M because of
added efficiencies associated with the NIT.
Truck Use of Railway Cut – The use of CN’s railway cut for truck traffic would result in
freeing city streets from some truck traffic. An estimated 53% of container terminal truck
traffic would be funnelled through the rail cut truckway. The 50% diversion relative to the
NIT options is due to the switching that will be necessary, as the rail cut would provide
only one truck lane with a switchable direction signal (it is expected that city streets will
be used by trucks when the direction of the traffic through the cut is contrary to their
intended direction). The benefit of the rail cut option is a reduction in truck driving time (a
more direct route), but there would be no increase in HPA system capacity.
9.6 Traffic/Capacity Analysis
A HPA ocean terminal capacity of 800,000 TEUs per year was used, estimating that
through some site modifications and additional equipment at Ceres and Halterm, a latent
capacity of 100,000 TEUs could be added to the system for an upper bound system
3
The NIT with the connectors is actually an option within an option; however it has been treated it as one
option because the prevailing thinking is that the connector will be built, particularly with the NIT in place.

capacity of 900,000 TEUs. The system limit of 900,000 TEUs is used in a model of
projected traffic to identify the point when the capacity threshold is approached and
exceeded.
Growth rates in TEU volume were set at three different levels, reflective of historical
growth rates, as follows:
 Low Growth Rate = 3.00%
 Moderate Growth Rate = 3.50%
 High Growth Rate = 5.00%
Figure 9.1
Capacity Projections
4,000
3,500
3,000
T E Us ( T ho u s an d s)
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Projection Years From 2004 Base
Med Grow th 3.5% High Grow th 5% Low Grow th 3%
Growth rates were applied to the 2004 throughput of 525,500 TEUs to generate
projections shown in Figure 9.1.
9.7 Analysis/Evaluation of Options
In fulfillment of the study proponents’ objectives, the development of a dedicated truck

route using the CN rail cut through peninsular Halifax is considered, along with the
construction and operation of a NIT. The resulting overview of benefits and costs
associated with the proposed trucking options is based on a comparative analysis of the
alternatives that was conducted using an Excel-based spreadsheet Benefit Cost Model
(BCA Model). This model provides the following analytical elements:
a) Assumptions Page;
b) Capital Cost Estimates;
c) System Capacity Limits page;
d) Determination of ‘When to Build’ based on capacity;

e) The associated implications for capital cost and the NPV of the expenditures in
the period being modeled;
f) An analysis of trucking flows;
g) An economic analysis of construction costs;
h) An analysis of benefits; and
i) A comparative benefit cost analysis.
The major assumptions included:
 Inflation Rate = 2.00%

 Discount Rate for PV = 5.00%
 Annual Capital Cost Replacement/O&M = 2.00%
 New Ocean Terminal Capital and Equipment with NIT = $225M
 New Ocean Terminal Capital and Equipment without NIT = $300M
 Railway Cut = $40M
 HPA Terminal Capacity
o Low = 800,000 TEU
o High = 900,000 TEU
o Latent Capacity = 100,000 TEU
 2004 Throughput = 525,500 TEU
 Growth Projections
o Low Growth Rate = 3.00%
o Mod Growth Rate = 3.50%
o High Growth Rate = 5.00%
 Based on a 40-Year Projection
 The maintenance added to annual expenditures at a rate of 2% of capital costs
per annum reflects the cost of periodic repaving of the railway cut and other costs
necessary to maintain the functionality of the infrastructure in all scenarios. With
respect to the NIT, greater cost analysis detail permitted more precision in the
replacement of equipment and maintenance schedules. Where available, this
detail was used to account for the service life of the infrastructure.
The Capital Cost Estimate page – provides construction and site development for the
NIT, the NIT with the connector road, the estimated cost of the new ocean terminal (with
and without NIT), and a cost for the truckway use of the rail cut.
The Capacity Limits assessment, as mentioned above, looks at projected growth in HPA
throughput and checks the capacity of the system in relation to the timing of the addition
to the system capacity under the various options and across the three growth scenarios.
This model allows for the consideration of ‘convergence’ or the time at which the exiting
capacity in each scenario becomes constrained with respect to arbitrarily selected
thresholds (i.e., 20% remaining excess capacity, 10% remaining excess capacity, 0%
remaining excess capacity). This analysis provides the time in ‘years out’ when new
capacity is needed under each growth scenario and within each option under
examination. This includes: the Cumulative Capacity Adding NIT 'Boost' (with and
without the connector road); the Cumulative Capacity Adding NIT 'Boost' (with and
without the connector road) and the New Ocean Terminal; and NOT by itself.

The rail expansion, since it does not add to capacity, is assessed as though it is
constructed in year 1. All other scenarios are built in the model in the year that the
capacity limitation is reached in each of the three growth scenarios.
The resulting ‘time to build’ provides the basis for determining the net present value of
each construction option, which is provided in the analysis of NPV of Capital Expenses
(the time to build establishes the number of periods relevant for the NPV calculations).
All NPV calculations are discounted by a rate of 5% and all prices are increased at a rate
of 2%. NPV of all options is based on the analysis of ‘when to build’, which came from
the growth projections for all three growth scenarios.
9.7.1 System Capacity Limits and Project Trigger
Figure 9.2 shows the relationship between the projected growth scenarios and the
capacity afforded by each option;
Figure 9.2
Capacity Projections
4,000
3,500
3,000
TEUs ( Thousands)
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Projection Years From 2004 Base
The rail cut option has the capacity limit associated with the status quo, as this option
will not contribute to system capacity (TEU = 900,000). The NIT with the connector
shows a capacity increase of 1,150,000 TEUs. NOT only is shown with a capacity limit of
1,450,000 TEUs. Finally, the NIT and NOT option affords the greatest capacity at
1,700,000 TEUs and provides the greatest ‘time until capacity is reached’ in each of the
three scenarios.
This is summarized in Figure 9.3.

Figure 9.3: Years Added by Options
[a] [b] [c] [d] Years Added By Options

SQ or SQ + SQ+ NIT SQ +
Rail Cut NIT + NOT NOT [b]–[a] [c]–[b] [c]–[a] [a]–[d]
System Wide
KTEU
Capacity 900 1,150 1,700 1,450 250 550 800 550
Under the
Low Growth Not Not Not
Scenario 20 yrs 28 yrs Reached 36 yrs 8 yrs Reached Reached 16 yrs
Under the
Mod. Growth
Scenario 17 yrs 24 yrs 36 yrs 31 yrs 7 yrs 12 yrs 19 yrs 14 yrs
Under the
High Growth
Scenario 13 yrs 18 yrs 26 yrs 22 yrs 5 yrs 8 yrs 13 yrs 9 yrs
In the Moderate Growth scenario, for example, the status quo is exhausted in 17 years
(2022). The NIT would extend this capacity limit by 7–24 years (2029). Adding the NOT
to this (SQ + NIT + NOT) would extend system capacity by 19 years (from 17–36 years -
2041) through the added capacity of both the NIT (7 years - 2012) and the NOT (12
years - 2017). Under the low growth scenario, the system capacity provided by the
combination of the status quo (900,000 TEUs), the NIT (250,000 TEUs) and the NOT
(550,000 TEUs) is not reached in 40 years (2045).
9.7.2 Capital Replacement
In the same way that projected growth thresholds are used to ‘trigger’ the timing of
construction (based on years when capacity limits are reached), the phasing of the
capital replacement that is required in the options is likewise linked into the project start
date (associated with each growth option). This life cycle cost analysis was provided for
the NIT project cost estimate because it was sufficiently detailed and provided useful life
of major project components (crane, pavement, track, etc.).
Given that the projections spanned 40 years, and the NIT project start date varied by the
capacity limits associated with each growth option, the period remaining in the projection
following the project start date (40 years minus the project start date) may be sufficiently
long that major project elements would be exhausted in the remaining period. As a result
of this, major elements were added into the NPV calculations based on the term of the
useful life associated with the project elements.
9.7.3 Comparison of Options
The core function of the BCA model developed for this assignment is its capacity to take
the projected growth scenarios and, when capacity limits are reached, inject the project
at the appropriate time to offset capacity deficits in each growth scenario. The resulting
savings and costs are calculated based on the relationships identified in earlier research
phases.

The model included an inventory of costs and benefits associated with the impact of the
project on the operations of the stakeholder groups or the infrastructure associated with
the stakeholders, including:
 NPV of Construction costs and Life Cycle Replacement Costs (NIT only);
 NPV Savings/Cost from Truck-km Eliminated/Added;
 NPV Savings/Cost from Truck-km Reduced (Freed) or increased;
 NPV Congestion;
 NPV of reductions/increases in greenhouse gas emissions;
 NPV more or fewer handlings, in particular, handlings at NIT (lifts-single
handling) handlings at HIT (lifts-single handling), and handlings at terminals (lifts-
single handling);
 NPV of impacts to truck operations measured in terms of increases/decreases in
mileage travelled, increase or decreases in restricted speed mileage, increases
or decreases in truck wait times, and increases or decreases in travel times;
 NPV Rail Haul/Switching
The results of this analysis are presented below.
9.8 Project Capital Costs
Estimated current value capital costs are shown in Figure 9.4.
Figure 9.4: Estimated Current Capital Costs
Project Current Capital Cost Estimates

NIT $56,444,645
NOT with NIT $225,000,000
NOT without NIT $300,000,000
Rail Cut Capital and Equipment $40,000,000
Figure 9.5 shows the NPV costs associated with each option and the period of
construction (determined from the capacity analysis described above).
Figure 9.5: Costs Associated with Each Option
Project, Year Implemented, NPV Low Growth Mod Growth High Growth
Year Added 20 17 13
Adding the NIT:
NPV $46.60 $50.81 $57.02
Year Added 28 24 18
NOT – NIT is in place:
NPV $101.54 $114.56 $137.29
Year Added 1 1 1
Railway Cut:
NPV $40.81 $40.81 $40.81
Year Added 20 17 13
NOT – no NIT in place
NPV $172.34 $188.66 $212.88

As noted in Figure 9.5, capacity limitations for the low, moderate and high growth
scenarios are 20, 17 and 13 years (2025, 2022 and 2018) respectively. Given that the
rail cut provides no particular improvement in capacity, year 1 was arbitrarily selected as
the implementation of this option. Consequently, this option emerges with the lowest
NPV, followed by the NIT, NIT with Connector, NOT with connector, and the NOT by
itself. It should be noted that where there are cumulative projects (NIT + NOT), the
timing of each is predicated on the capacity limits being exhausted as described above
(i.e., NIT is done and boosts system capacity and NOT is done when the boosted
capacity is exhausted some time later).
Delaying the cost of the truckway would, of course, lower the NPV of that option further.
However, as it is more directly feasible, it was added in the model in year 1 because it
immediately addresses the problem of truck congestion. The other options, while
addressing truck traffic, also address capacity and throughput and so their project starts
are more appropriately timed in consideration of those issues. More succinctly, the NIT
options are driven by container traffic alone, whereas the rail cut is driven by truck
volume.
9.9 Project Benefits/Costs
Because six (options have been considered over three different levels of growth, there
are 18 individual outcomes that could be compared.
Since the rank of the benefits and costs do not change within the three growth options,
the written analysis has been focused on the moderate growth scenario (3.5%).
The additions / (reduction) in truck-km traveled is provide in Figure 9.6.
Figure 9.6: Additions / Reductions in Truck-km Travelled
Km Added/(Removed) (Moderate Growth Scenario)

Sum of Km
Moderate Today
Truck Distance Saved (Yr 17 to Yr 40)
Growth (000s)
(000s)
Truck-Kilometres 4 350
Rail Cut
Km of City Streets Freed (374) (32,729)
(Year 1)
Rail Container Km Per Year - -
Truck-Kilometres (840) (55,276)
NIT
Km of City Streets Freed (584) (38,430)
(Year 17)
Rail Container Km Per Year 1,040 68,437
As shown, NIT has the greatest effect in terms of reducing truck-km traveled and this is
significantly bolstered by the addition of the highway connector. Conversely, this option
adds rail km traveled by virtue of the fact that the rail cut becomes the pathway for a
short haul shuttle service between the NIT and the port. The rail cut option is responsible
for the greatest reduction in city street truck km but this is offset somewhat by the
significant increase in truck-km travelling the proposed truckway.
Several sources suggest that the theory and reality of road surface management are
rather disparate. The level of annual expenditure that will maintain a given level of

quality of road for a given period tends to be higher than that which is required. The
implication is that road surfaces experience a more rapid loss in quality (road services)
and a much more abbreviated life cycle. Thus, the proposed comparative analysis of
road maintenance data for Lower Water Street, Hollis Street and Barrington Street (if it
were available) would have little to do with the true cost, as in practice higher immediate
annual maintenance expenses are tended to be foregone in exchange for lower road
quality and shorter replacement cycles.
Nevertheless, it is clear that road wear from trucks is significantly more for trucks than
from cars. The Railway Association of Canada shows the passenger car equivalent for
trucks in Figure 9.7 (note that one 8-axle 62,000 kg truck is equivalent to nearly 20,000
cars).
Figure 9.7
Source: The Railway Association of Canada; Research Paper; Heavy Goods Vehicles Infrastructure Costs
and Revenue; July 2002, p 27.
The US Department of Transportation and the Canadian Alliance of Truckers recently

issued truck/1,000 km road costs. The resulting broad ranges indicated a cost from as
low as US$2.41 per 1,000 km to a high of US$204.00 per 1,000 km. Our calculations
blended these rates and used a middle ground cost of US$181.00 per 1,000 km or
approximately CDN$217 per 1,000 km.
The resulting financial benefit/cost from the increase/decrease in road wear and tear is
provided in the following figure for truck kilometres eliminated.
Figure 9.8 Financial Benefit / Cost from Increase / Decrease in Road Wear
Value of Truck-Km Eliminated

Average Yearly Sum NPV
Truck-Km
Scenario Cost/(Savings) (Build Yr to Yr 40)
Eliminated
(000s) (000s)
Low Growth 1.8 24.5
Rail Cut
Mod Growth 2.0 26.8
Year 1, 1, 1
High Growth 2.9 35.4
Low Growth (482) (2,210)
NIT
Mod Growth (532) (2,979)
Year 20, 17, 13
High Growth (759) (5,211)

There will be truck traffic on either the rail cut or on the road to Rocky Lake with the
trade-off being the km diverted to other roads as they are removed from downtown. It
should be noted that since the analysis is presented from the variance in truck-km (net
incremental positive or negative change in truck-km) this trade-off is implicitly addressed.
Figure 9.9 provides the benefit of the truck travel shift from restricted speed/access
roads to higher speed roads.
Figure 9.9 Benefit of Truck Travel Shift
Value of Truck-Km Reduced

Average Yearly Sum NPV
Truck-Km
Scenario Cost/(Savings) (Build Yr to Yr 40)
Eliminated
(000s) (000s)
Low Growth (66.8) (818.6)
Rail Cut
Mod Growth (76.1) (905.8)
Year 1, 1, 1
High Growth (113.8) (1,246.2)
NIT Low Growth (152.4) (674.7)
Mod Growth (165.6) (885.1)
Year 20, 17, 13 High Growth (234.1) (1,513.8)
The value of the shift in km traveled is similarly assessed using the blend of US DOT
and Canadian Alliance factors (calculated using a 25% factor to recognize the savings is
only from the shift from ‘urban’ roads which are typically more costly to maintain). If the
facilities are built in year 20, the NIT will yield an average annual savings of $152,410 in
road wear and tear, with a NPV savings from cumulative savings from year 20 to 40 of
$700,000.
Figure 9.10 shows the volume of truck traffic that would persist if these vehicles were not
diverted. This figure pertains to the moderate growth scenario and portrays trend lines
for Halterm, HIT and Ceres, as well as totals for each the entire system and totals for the
Halifax Ocean Terminals (i.e., excluding HIT).

Figure 9.10
Projected Truck Traffic Growth
(Moderate Growth 3.5%)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Total Ocean Terminal (Mod Growth) Ceres (Mod Growth) Halterm (Mod Growth) HIT (Mod Growth)
The implication is that, with this rate of truck traffic growth, there will be nearly 600 trucks
at the port, with 501 of these associated with the port terminals.
9.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions for the proposed truck/rail systems are
considered for the four Options: NIT Rocky Lake, NIT Rocky Lake and connector, NIT
Milford Station and Use of Rail Cut. The first three options consider the use of rail
transport to reduce the number of truck-km per year, including both highway and non-
highway distances. The final option makes use of a rail cut to reduce the number of off-
highway truck-km. Figure 9.11 summarizes the increase (decrease) in annual
transportation distances associated with each option.
Figure 9.11: Summary of Transportation Distances for Truck/Rail Routing Options
Option Truck-km Off-Highway Rail Unit-km Rail Trip

per year Truck-km per year per year Distance (km)
NIT Rocky Lake (730,000) (306,000) 1,080,000 22
NIT Rocky Lake & connector (840,000) (584,000) 1,080,000 22
NIT Milford Station (1,722,000) 256,000 3,836,000 60
Use of Rail Cut 4000 (374,000) 0 0
The primary contaminants associated with tailpipe emissions that contribute to GHG and
global warming are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). These
compounds, along with water vapour and ozone, are naturally occurring greenhouse
gases and are continuously emitted to and removed from the atmosphere by natural

processes. For this impact assessment, only these compounds that are produced as a
result of fuel combustion are considered.
Appendix I of Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-1999 provides emission factors

for GHG emissions from mobile combustion sources. These emission factors are
provided in grams of pollutant per litre of fuel burned for a range of on-road vehicle from
light duty gas automobiles to heavy-duty diesel vehicles. This foundation paper also
provides emission factors for off-road vehicles, including diesel rail transportation, which
were used for this assessment.
To apply the emission factors to the truck-km saved and rail-km added, an estimate of
fuel economy is required. From a report entitled ”Energy Savings through Increased Fuel
Economy for Heavy-Duty Trucks”4, a fleet-wide fuel economy for tractor-trailers of 5.3
miles per US gallon was obtained. Heavy-duty trucks are most fuel efficient when
traveling at constant speeds in the range of 50 to 80 km/h. For off-highway travel, where
frequent stops for traffic intersections and congestion are expected, a reduction in fuel
economy is expected. An Environment Canada report5 indicates that for light-duty
vehicles a fuel consumption penalty of up to 68% can be expected for a vehicle making
10 stops along a 10 km route. The report notes that this same trend (penalty) is also
expected to apply to heavy-duty trucks. For this assessment, we assumed a reduction in
fuel efficiency of 50% associated with off-highway travel by heavy-duty trucks.
A report entitled “Influence of Duty Cycles and Fleet Profile on Emissions from
Locomotives in Canada” 6 provided fuel consumption for various locomotives and duty
cycles for each locomotive throttle position. The consultants used fuel consumption data
for a SD-40 train (3000 hp) and assumed that locomotives operated at throttle position 4
and traveled at an average speed of 30 mph (50 km/h) over the entire trip. The
corresponding fuel consumption is 389 lb/hr (176.45 kg/hr). The total number of
locomotive trips per day (each direction) was 2.5. The one-way travel distance to the NIT
Rocky Lake is 22 km for a total locomotive travel time of 2.2 hours per day. For the NIT
Milford station, the one-way travel distance is 60 km for a total locomotive travel time of
6.0 hours per day.
The following figure summarizes the annual GHG emissions associated with each
transportation option. The total GHG emissions, expressed as CO2-equivalents, are
obtained using the 100-year global warming potentials for CO2, CH4 and N 2O of 1, 21
and 310, respectively. The calculation for CO 2-equivalents is:
Tonnes CO2 Eq. = (Tonnes CO2 x 1) + (Tonnes CH4 x 21) + (Tonnes N2O x 310)
Results are provided for four scenarios: NIT Quarry, NIT Quarry & connector, NIT Milford
Station and Use of Rail Cut. Bracketed values represent a net savings in GHG
emissions.
4
Therese Langer, “Energy Savings through Increased Fuel Economy for Heavy-Duty Trucks”, American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, February 11, 2004.
5
Environment Canada,“Trucks and Air Emissions”, Publication EPS 2/TS/14, September 2001.
6
Robert Dunn, Consultant in Railway Fuels, Lubricants and Emissions, “Influence of Duty Cycles and Fleet
Profile on Emissions from Locomotives in Canada”, June 2002.

Figure 9.12: Summary of Net Annual GHG Emissions (tonnes per year)
Option ER (CO 2) ER (CH 4) ER (N2O) ER (CO 2 Eq.)

NIT Quarry (622) (0.03) 0.15 (576)
NIT Quarry & connector (930) (0.05) 0.14 (887)
NIT Milford Station (687) (0.04) 0.45 (550)
Use of Rail Cut (229) (0.01) (0.01) (232)
The NIT Rocky Lake and connector option is estimated to provide the greatest annual
savings in GHG emissions followed by the NIT Rocky Lake option and the NIT Milford
Station option. The use of the existing rail cut also shows a decrease in GHG emissions
despite a total net increase in truck-km traveled. This increase is associated with the
reduction in off-highway truck-km traveled and replaced by constant speed highway
travel.
Not included in this study are the short-term impacts from vehicle emissions. The
reduction of off-highway truck-kilometres traveled will also reduce emissions associated
with idling trucks during traffic back-ups as well as emissions associated with idling
vehicles backed-up due to traffic congestion, part of which would be created by the truck
traffic.
Figure 9.13 provides the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions in tonnes per year (year
1) associated with each options. Consistent with earlier results, the NIT with connector
configurations (Options 2 and 4) provide the greatest reduction in GHGs. The rail cut is
slightly higher than the status quo at 10 tonnes more per year.
Figure 9.13: Cumulative GHGs for each Study Option
Option SUM of GHG

9$/tonne 10$/tonne
(tonnes/yr)
NIT
(1,082) $(9,737) $(10,819)
Year 20, 17, 13
Rail Cut
10 $90 $100
Year 1, 1, 1
Given a rule of thumb cost of GHG emission reduction of $9 to $10/tonne, in Table 9.14
the net cost/benefit from the increase/reduction in GHG from the proposed options is
provided.

Figure 9.14
NET GHG EMISSIONS – Increase/(Reduction)
Average (000s) NPV (000s)

Low Growth
NIT ($78.9) ($349.3)
Use of Rail Cut ($13.7) ($167.9)
Mod Growth
NIT ($85.7) ($458.2)
Use of Rail Cut ($15.6) ($185.8)
High Growth
NIT ($146.3) ($626.5)
Use of Rail Cut ($23.3) ($255.6)
In all scenarios, the highest NPV is derived from the NIT. The real value of the removal
of traffic in downtown is not the road savings but the better land use that is afforded.
9.11 NIT
Figure 9.15 provides a summary of the net costs and benefits associated with the
operational impacts of the NIT. Presented for the moderate growth scenario, the figure
shows that the NPV of the overall savings derived from the NIT is $8.6M (from the build
year 17 to year 40). Net savings are composed of a rather significant increase in
handling costs at NIT which is more than offset by savings in, among other things,
handling costs at HIT and the terminals as well as nearly $50M in NPV savings to truck
operations through a reduction in km travelled and time efficiencies.
Figure 9.15: Costs and Savings of NIT with Connector
Moderate Growth Rate $ per

Units Cost ($K) NPV
Unit
Handlings at NIT (lifts-single handling) 20 206,711 $4.1M $113.6M
Handlings at HIT (lifts-single handling) 25 (24,600) ($615K) ($16.9M)
Handlings at Terminals (lifts-single handling) 30 (108,205) ($3.2M) ($89.2M)
Trucking distance (thousand truck-km) 1,060 (840) ($890K) ($24.4M)
Trucking time savings (thousand truck-km) 389 (584) ($226K) ($6.2M)

Trucking time (waiting time in hours) 35 (18,063) ($632K) ($17.3M)
Shuttle switching and railcars lump sum N/A N/A $893K $24.5M
Rail haul (thousand unit-km) $250 1,080 $270K $7.4M

Overall cost increase (savings) ($313K) ($8.6M)

9.12 Rail Cut Operational Saving
The operational costs and savings that can be derived from the rail cut option are
presented in Figure 9.16 for the low growth scenario.
Figure 9.16: Low Growth Costs and Savings from Rail Cut Option
Rate $
Units Cost ($K) NPV
per unit
Shuttle switching
$1,060 4 $4K $169K
(lump sum)
Trucking time (driving
$35 (8,311) ($145K) ($5.8M)
time in hours)
Overall transportation cost increase ($141K) ($5.6M)
As shown, the NPV of this option provides a savings of $5.6M over the 40-year
projection (the rail cut is assumed to start in Year 1). The saving is derived from the
reduction in trucking costs as a result of using the more efficient truckway, more than
offsetting the costs of extra shuttle switching that would be necessary under this option.
9.13 Quantification of Costs and Benefits
This section quantifies the costs and benefits of the various scenarios we examined.
Figure 9.17: Quantification of Costs and Benefits: Pre-I-O Results
NPV
Net NPV Net Benefit/Cost
Growth Scenario Construction
Benefits Benefit/(Cost) Ratio
Costs (millions)
Low Growth $46.60 $0.00 -$36.79 0.21
NIT Moderate Growth $50.81 -$12.94 -$37.87 0.25
High Growth $57.02 -$21.99 -$35.03 0.39
Low Growth $148.14 -$9.47 -$138.67 0.06
NOT w/NIT Moderate Growth $165.37 -$12.48 -$152.89 0.08
High Growth $194.31 -$21.36 -$172.95 0.11
Low Growth $172.34 $0.00 -$172.34 -
NOT no NIT Moderate Growth $188.66 $0.00 -$188.66 -
High Growth $212.88 $0.00 -$212.88 -
Low Growth $40.81 -$12.26 -$28.55 0.30
Rail Cut Moderate Growth $40.81 -$13.54 -$27.27 0.33
High Growth $40.81 -$18.50 -$22.31 0.45
By far the least expensive option is to do nothing; however, this should be rejected as it
offers potentially significantly higher costs for port expansion at a later date, permits
continued wear and tear on downtown city streets, perpetuates continued/increasingly

congested stop and go traffic, adds congestion and therefore increases driving times for
commuters, and provides no operational efficiencies for the port or the port users.
The assumption under Option 0 is that the terminal will continue to grow at historical
rates. Presently, the growth rates indicate an 80% increase over the next 20 years. This
is shown in Figure 9.2 where a linear progression is used to fit the trend line. At this level
of demand/cargo traffic, the HPA capacity of 900,000 TEUs will be achieved by year 20
(2025) under a low growth prediction and by year 17 (2022) under a moderate growth
scenario. Thus, there will be the requirement for some form of expansion at that point (in
effect, the status quo is more of an option to react to growth at a later date).
The cost of this expansion will be on the order of $225M to $300M and occur within 20
years. The NPV of this expansion is shown in the vicinity of $170M to $205M depending
on when it is needed, meaning that this is the highest cost option. At lower volume than
this the best option would be to build the NIT and defer the requirement for the NOT (as
shown above, this option has a NPV of between $135M and $170M, again, depending
on assumed growth).7
With the NIT option, a new facility is constructed near Rocky Lake and this becomes the
point where all inbound freight is grounded for local, regional and continental deliveries.
As well, it becomes the drop-off point for outbound ocean freight, which will be shuttled
to the terminals.
With a NIT, the truck traffic to and from Ceres, HIT and Halterm becomes a function of
road km to and from the inland terminal plus the rail km to and from the terminals.
Furthermore, road kilometres are a function of limited access km (highway speeds
assumed to be 90 kmph) and unlimited access kilometres (stop and go traffic).
 Location characteristics shorten the truck trips from certain nodes throughout NS
and increase the travel distance for others
 Reduces the amount of restricted km
 Highway time increases fuel efficiency relative to city time
 Time taken from stop and go traffic reduces wait time
 Better access reduces wait time
 Truck-km saved to get to terminals are replaced with rail km (Ceres, HIT and
Halterm).
Figure 9.18 provides a synopsis where the NPV is related to the TEU capacity added.
7
Expansion of capacity can occur through the expansion of the fixed factors of production (capital
equipment or land) and addition of the variable resources (e.g., labour). At some point, there is insufficient
capital for labour to use (e.g., not enough gantry cranes on the dock) or, viewed the other way, there is
insufficient capital for the available labour.

Figure 9.18: Synopsis of NPV Related to Added TEU Capacity
Growth Scenario Capacity Added NPV/Capacity Added
Low Growth 250,000 $186

NIT Moderate Growth 250,000 $203
High Growth 250,000 $228
Low Growth 810,000 $183
NOT w/Nit Moderate Growth 810,000 $204
Low Growth 560,000 $308
NOT no NIT Moderate Growth 560,000 $337
Low Growth - N/A
Rail Cut Moderate Growth - N/A
High Growth - N/A
Note that the NPV per TEU of constructing the NIT (with connector) plus NOT is $181–
$240 per TEU gained while the same ratio for the NOT alone is $308–$380.
9.14 Economic Impact Analysis (I-O model)
An Input-Output (I-O) model was used to estimate the impacts associated with the
construction phases of the NIT. The I-O model used was derived from Statistics Canada
input-output tables, which are based on the Canadian System of National Accounts. It is
a model that provides a method to track inter- and intra-industry linkages which define
the relationships of the production of one good or service to the industries that generate
that good or service. The I-O model used is this research is based the System of
Accounts at the Large Level aggregation, using 161 industries or sectors.
Expenditure data estimated for the construction of the NIT are entered in the model,
which then extracts retail, wholesale and transportation margins from each expenditure
item. The remaining expenditure balances are then reallocated to the appropriate
industries according to the National Accounting Framework.
All expenditure data entered into the model are also adjusted by an import coefficient to
remove or ‘leak' portions of expenditure that are not produced in the province being
analyzed – in this case, Nova Scotia. The remaining expenditure that is made in Nova
Scotia is further allocated to the industries that produce the given commodity (good or
service).
Producing industries will, in turn, consume outputs from other sectors to produce their
respective goods or services. These inter-industry relationships that show what
commodity is being used by which sector and in what proportions are also provided by
the input-output tables from the National Accounts.

The model is an iterative process where successive rounds of expenditures and

purchases of ‘make’ and ‘use’ are run until there is no money left as a result of the
leakages through imports, taxes and savings. At this point, the model stops all
calculations and the total impacts, by industry and by province, are summed.
9.14.1 Class of Impacts
The class of impacts that are estimated by the I-O model include direct, indirect and
induced effects. These are defined below.
i) Direct Impacts are production, income, employment, taxes and spending on goods
and services associated with the direct construction spending in relation to the NIT. This
would include expenses on labour, equipment rental and transportation, as examples.
ii) Indirect Effects are production, income, employment, tax, resource or environmental
changes in backward linked industries. For example, these are the impacts associated
with the suppliers to the NIT construction project and, in turn, suppliers to these
suppliers. Examples of indirect effects would be the impacts associated with the
transactions between the NIT construction project people and a supplier of heavy
equipment parts. In the study terminology, the indirect effect is the sum of the direct
endogenous (first round of indirect effects or impact on first suppliers) plus the indirect
effects.
iii) Induced Effects are the changes in household spending caused by changes in
household income. These are the impact from NIT construction workers/employees
spending their wages and salaries on goods and services. As an example, it is the
grader operator who spends wages earned during the construction.
The total impacts are the sum of the direct, indirect and induced impacts. The results of
the I-O simulation of the NIT construction impacts are described below.
9.14.2 Gross Production
This is the final statistic generated by the I-O model. This is the sum of all sales by
industry resulting from the sector spending being modelled. The gross production figure
is interpreted as the amount of sales generated in each industry through the original
expenditures in relation to the Construction. Gross Production is the combination of the
direct, indirect and induced industry expenditures.
The direct construction spending of $50M has a total gross economic impact of $127.39
million comprising
 $46.7M in Direct Spending
 $38.6M in Indirect Spending, and
 $42.1M in Induced Spending
The economic impact of the NIT project expressed in person-years of employment

includes estimated 804.5 full-year, full time positions comprising
 365 direct positions,
 289 indirect positions, and
 150 induced positions.

The construction project also provides a $40M estimated contribution to GDP (at market
prices) comprising
 $13.8M in direct contribution to GDP,
 $13.9M in indirect GDP, and
 $11.3M in induced contribution to Nova Scotia’s GDP.
The overall contribution to Federal Government Total Tax Revenues is $5.3M through
 $1.4M in direct contribution to Federal taxes,
 $1.8M in indirect Federal taxes, and
 $3.1M in induced contribution to Federal taxes.
The NIT construction will contribute $3.4M in Provincial tax revenues through
 $0.9M in direct contribution to provincial taxes,
 $1.4M in indirect provincial taxes, and
 $2.0M million in induced contribution to provincial taxes.
9.14.3 Operational Impacts
These are, obviously, the more interesting impacts associated with the project – the
longer term influences of the NIT on the local and regional economy in terms of direct
and spin-off jobs and spending. These are also the impacts of the NIT with respect to the
efficiencies and synergies it provides in terms of its role in creating a distribution hub in
Burnside and the collateral businesses that may be encouraged to locate there.
These impacts, while interesting, are difficult to foresee and therefore difficult to model.
The HPA had the benefit of a recent economic impact study that we have used and
applied a linear extrapolation to identify the order of magnitude economic effects that
might prevail at the time NIT is built in 13 to 20 years (2018-2025). On the basis of that
study, in year 17 (2022) and operating at a 900,000 TEU system capacity, the port will
generate as many as 15,606 direct and indirect jobs and $1.16B in annual income
generation (based on a continuation of current economic impact of $700M, 9,000 jobs).
In effect, the economic benefit of the NIT option is the capacity of the Port of Halifax to
continue to generate the economic benefits it provides presently, at a pace consistent
with the port’s future growth.
9.15 Summary
When framing a benefit/costs analysis, it is not generally acceptable to include the

benefits of how that spending activity permeates the economic system. Only those
benefits that flow directly from the project are to be included in the analysis except where
those benefits would not have otherwise occurred within the given economic system
(i.e., where the benefits are incremental). The question becomes, therefore, what
proportion of economic benefits would arise in this region if the port were not here?
Those benefits that are above what would otherwise exist provide the rationale for the
investment in the infrastructure. As a result, it is necessary to consider these multiplier
benefits and attempt to identify those that are incremental (or would not otherwise exist).

If as little as 1% of the estimated $700M of economic benefit was incremental (or would
not have otherwise occurred), the 40-year stream of these incremental benefits would
have a net present value (NPV) of between $970M and $1.4B (depending on the growth
scenario). This would be equivalent to an average incremental economic benefit of
between $14M and $22M (based on the gross impacts of $700M).
Figure 9.19:
Quantification of Costs and Benefits: Including Assumed Incremental I-O Benefits
Growth Scenario Benefit/ Cost Ratio
Low Growth 3.94

NIT Moderate Growth 3.91
High Growth 4.52
Low Growth 1.24
NOT w/NIT Moderate Growth 1.20
High Growth 1.33
Low Growth 1.12
NOT no NIT Moderate Growth 1.12
High Growth 1.32
Low Growth 3.98
Rail Cut Moderate Growth 4.05
High Growth 4.29
Figure 9.19 provides a consolidated analysis of the benefit/cost including the incremental
economic benefits (assumed at 1% of estimated gross benefits). Because the rail cut
does not contribute to capacity, the economic impacts are assumed to remain
unchanged once the capacity is reached, based on the low, moderate and high growth
scenarios (i.e., 20 , 17 and 13 years). In reality, it is likely that as capacity is reached and
terminal operators work at this level, inefficiencies will emerge that will contribute to cost
or cause shippers to leave and use services elsewhere in the port or even other ports.
As such, the assumption that the economic benefits remain constant at the constrained
level will tend to overstate the true condition and, therefore, the benefit/cost ratios for the
rail cut may be lower than those provided.

10.0 Stakeholder Consultations
A number of stakeholders were consulted during the course of this study, including
shipping lines, the trucking community, terminal operators, and Canada Customs.
Information was also obtained from the Halifax Employers Association. In most cases,
the meetings were held face to face although in some instances the telephone was the
only option.
During the interviews, the concepts of the rail cut and the NIT were presented, explained
as necessary and discussed. Interviewees were solicited for their comments/concerns
as well as for information pertinent to the study. Much of the data used for the study was
obtained in this fashion and we are grateful to the participants for their insight. What
follows is a summary of the main issues and concerns raised during the interviews:
10.1 Shipping Lines
The shipping lines were most concerned about cost and service levels. Most supported
the objective of reducing trucks in the city, particularly in the downtown area, but not at
any cost.
Five shipping lines interviewed raised the issue of the additional costs and expressed
concerns that they would end up paying for these extra costs and yet be unable to
recover these costs from either offsetting savings or from the freight. Two of the
interviewees suggested their firms may have to book local Halifax cargo on a port to port
basis only.
The improved availability of the containers at the NIT with longer hours of operation was
viewed as a very minor advantage particularly as container terminals presently
have reasonable truck turnaround times and local containers are generally readily
available (no chronic congestion).
Concern was expressed over who would operate the shuttle and the NIT and how
service levels would be maintained in the long term. The extra step of moving the
containers to and from a NIT was seen as an extra cost burden, a delay and a potential
for service failure.
Oceanex handles a lot of perishables, higher value and time-sensitive cargoes and
presently offers a late gate service to their customers on Friday evenings and Saturday
mornings. They compete with trucks to Newfoundland and if they do not accept late
arrivals, the freight is lost to them. Even with scheduled shunts to match the
requirements of the Oceanex sailings, the service level could not match the present
practice. Ocean carriers (as a group) do not generally rely on late gates.
10.2 Terminal Operators
Ceres, Halterm and Logistec were interviewed both to reconcile the number of trucks per
day and to share their thoughts on the rail cut and the inland terminal options being
studied. Generally they expressed the opinion that there is still unused capacity to
handle containers in Halifax, that the service levels at their respective facilities were

better than they have been in the past and that there were other (less expensive) ways
to reduce traffic.
The rail cut was seen as a positive, although limited, solution if only one-way traffic was
possible.
10.3 Trucking Community
The trucking community was generally more positive and would be happy to avoid city
traffic and achieve better truck turnaround times. Long haul truckers are most interested
in the extended hours of operation while local trucking companies are most interested in
increasing their number of trips per day.
The rail cut option was also seen in a positive light although not if it became a toll road.
Some trucking companies have acquired handling equipment and store some containers
at their facilities rather than have to call at port terminals on every trip, while other long
haul trucking companies sub-contract port calls so they can hook and haul on arrival and
not be tied to the hours of operation of the terminals.
10.4 Customs (protection)
There exist several opportunities for improved security protection with a NIT concept and
all but emergency inspections could be postponed until the containers reached the NIT.
It is expected that so-called door inspections of containers destined for rail would also
continue to be performed at the port terminals.
10.5 Summary
Figure 10.1 provides a summary of stakeholder impacts:

Figure 10.1: Stakeholder Impacts
Stakeholder Pros Cons Overall Comments

The inland terminal is
HRM Removal of trucks from city streets Positive one method to reduce
truck traffic in the city
Reduced road maintenance costs
Reduced GHG emissions
Reduced noise levels in city

The Port's capacity could
Postponement of Additional step in be increased at a lower
HPA investment in new transportation Positive cost per unit than the
terminal chain alternative of building a
third terminal.
Short-term capacity increase
Reduced congestion on port roads

Improved access would
Shippers & Additional step in be more than offset by
24/7 access to freight Negative
receivers process = delay additional handling and
logistics.
Ability to shunt to-from
Increased costs
Burnside
More cost, more work,
Shipping lines Increased costs Negative
same revenue
Extra logistics
Extra handlings
More complex
Rail shuttle Shuttle service needs to
More revenue scheduling of Neutral
(CN) be viable
switching
Truckers Quicker turnarounds Less revenue Positive Better productivity overall
Better truck utilization
Postponement of third Loss of business during
Terminals Lower revenue Negative
terminal normal working hours
More variability in work
patterns

11.0 Value Added Opportunities
In 2004, the Halifax Port Authority, Greater Halifax Partnership and the Office of
Economic Development sponsored a study to examine the potential to attract additional
distribution activity to the Halifax region, to attract additional shipping lines to call at the
port.
Several retailers and major shippers were identified who were interested in shipping
more cargo through Halifax. The timing of the study coincided with congestion being
experienced at ports on both the Canadian and US west coasts. Several ports on the US
east coast have been able to lever the location of distribution centres nearby to attract a
new breed of all-water shipping services from the Far East. The two best North
American examples of ports that have levered the location of distribution activities into
additional container throughput are Savannah and Norfolk.
The Port of Savannah has experienced consistent, strong volume growth for each of the
past five years. This volume growth has been driven by a number of factors – notably,
an emphasis on all-water services from Asia and a strong push by the Georgia Ports
Authority in concert with the Savannah Economic Development Authority to attract new
logistics/import distribution centres to southeastern Georgia.
In 1995 Home Depot was one of the first of the major retailers to locate a distribution
facility near the port of Savannah. Figure 11.1 identifies the major retail companies that
have located distribution facilities in and around Savannah to handle imported
containerized shipments. The figure also shows the total size of these companies’
existing facilities.
Figure 11.1: Savannah Distribution Centres
Best Buy 700,000 sq. ft. (65, 032 sq. m)

California Cartage/ Kmart 191,216 sq. ft. (17, 765 sq. m)
Dollar Tree 800,000 sq. ft. (74,322 sq. m)
Fred's 600,000 sq. ft. (55, 742 sq. m)
Hugo Boss 165,000 sq. ft. (15,339 sq. m)
Lowe's 750,000 sq. ft. (69,977 sq. m)
Michael's 400,000 sq. ft. (37,161 sq. m)
Pier 1 Imports 800,000 sq. ft. (37,161 sq. m)
The Home Depot 1, 400,000 sq. ft. (130,064 sq. m)
Wal-Mart (Savannah) 1,300,000 sq. ft. (120,774 sq. m)
The Bombay Company 250,000 sq. ft. (23,226 sq. m)
Source: Port Publications
Most of these retailers are located in the Crossroads Business Center, a 2,000-acre (809
ha) site being developed by private real estate firms.
Savannah’s geographic position as the first major port north of the Panama Canal on the
east coast with uncongested access to major highways and Class 1 railroads is a major
advantage. The Port’s location allows carriers to maintain highly competitive transit times
versus other East Coast alternatives.

Like Savannah, the Virginia Port Authority has spent considerable energy attracting over
30 distribution centres to locate within the state and relatively close to the port. Their
reasoning is that if a carrier desires to carry a certain shipper’s or retailer’s cargo, then
this will lock them into a Norfolk port of call. Likewise, the port’s inland terminal, called
Virginia Inland Port, serves these distribution centres and offers speedier access to
cargo.
Figure 11.2: Virginia Inland Port
Source: Virginia Port Authority, www.vpa.com
In Halifax, the opportunity appears to be to attract cargo from the Indian sub-continent,
South East Asia and the Pearl River Delta in a westbound direction through the Suez
Canal, rather than eastbound via the Panama Canal.
In the short term, it appears that several companies are interested in transloading
containers and domestic trailers at either a third party (3PL) warehouse or their own
facility. Indeed, during the course of this study, Canadian Retail Shippers’ Association
announced it would be shipping 4,000 TEUs from the Indian sub-continent and China via
Halifax, which will be transloaded to a warehouse operated by Armour Transportation
Group. This option will make better use of containers moving westbound with import
cargo. This same cargo is transferred into trailers in Toronto for shipment back east, and
the containers are often shipped empty back to Halifax.
For the present study the following retailers and 3PLs were contacted:
 HBC Logistics
 Loblaws
 Canadian Tire Corporation
 CRSA
 Wal-Mart
 Home Hardware
 Home Depot
 FastFrate

 HUDD
There seems to be willingness and a new commitment on the part of some major
shippers to move additional Far East and Indian sub-continent cargo through the Port of
Halifax. The immediate concern is a lack of shipping space either on all-water Panama
services or Suez services coming into Halifax. One major shipper indicated there is not
enough choice in either carriers or rail service to lock them into the Halifax gateway.
In terms of value-added opportunities afforded by a NIT, there appear to be many

synergies that could be developed between the NIT and local shippers and both regional
and national distributors. At a minimum, the inland terminal results in better asset
utilization in terms of trucking units. Assuming the Burnside Connector is built along with
the terminal, it potentially offers much quicker access to warehouses and distribution
facilities. It also opens up the northern portion of Burnside Industrial Park to the
development of a new generation of distribution warehouses, a so-called Distripark
concept.
At least two 3PLs that were contacted expressed an interest in operating the terminal
once it is built. The shippers contacted all said they are planning to ship additional cargo
through the port in 2005 and that this initiative will be watched with considerable interest.

12.0 Value Proposition
The NIT is a compelling project with a number of potential winners and few losers,
providing the timing is correct. The NIT reduces peninsular truck traffic. It saves wear
and tear on local roads and reduces air pollution in the downtown core.
The NIT increases the capacity of the existing container terminals and postpones the
need to construct a NOT, with the timing dependent upon the port’s overall growth. The
NIT allows CN to move its HIT and consolidate with NIT, leading to efficiencies. It also
provides some potential to consolidate NIT, Rockingham, HIT and the Dartmouth yard at
one location. It potentially frees up Rockingham for other uses and HPA could acquire
the HIT site to develop an expanded multi-use terminal at Richmond Terminal.
The NIT allows for better truck turnaround times for import/export cargo, for both
regional and Halifax cargo. Truckers serving the Maritimes will not have to come into the
city to pick up or deliver cargo. Truckers serving the local market will get better asset
utilization and easier access to local pick up and delivery in area industrial parks.
There are potential spin-offs in terms of the development of distribution centres near the
NIT in the area of the Bedford Industrial Park or Burnside. The NIT potentially opens up
the northern portion of Burnside Industrial Park for additional distribution activity. For the
provincial Department of Transportation and Public Works and HRM, the NIT provides
justification for proceeding with the Burnside Connector.
The cost of the project can be shared amongst a number of parties who stand to benefit,
including Halifax Port Authority, Halifax Regional Municipality, CN, the Province of Nova
Scotia, the Municipal Group and a 3PL company.
The project generates total economic impact of $130M in the construction phase. It
enhances the port’s overall economic impact by generating an additional 15,606 direct
and indirect jobs and $1.16B in annual income generation.
As a stand-alone entity, the cost/benefit is negative. However, the alternative to building

NIT – building a NOT – is more expensive.
The Rail Cut option removes some trucks from downtown streets, and sends them
through a neighbourhood of very expensive homes and universities. It will reduce wear
and tear on downtown streets but requires a $40M investment to build. The truckway
only ‘benefits’ Halterm and Logistec, unless an expensive flyover is built, in which case it
could potentially accommodate buses.
The Rail Cut provides no real value or competitive advantage for the port and few
spinoffs in terms of distribution activity. It may result in slightly better access for local
shippers, depending upon whether they can plan around the inbound/outbound
schedule.
There are few opportunities for partnering and little motivation for other entities besides
HRM to invest in the Rail Cut option, unlike the NIT.

13.0 Conclusions
It is quite apparent there is not now sufficient congestion at either terminal or in

downtown Halifax to justify the NIT. Moreover, whatever port congestion there is relates
to moving cargo inland to Quebec, Ontario and the US Midwest, not cargo trucked to
local or regional destinations.
The NIT is justified only by the avoidance of capital costs required to build a NOT. An
investment of $60M in NIT provides an additional 250,000 TEUs in handling capacity,
whereas an investment of $300M in NOT provides an additional 550,000 TEUs of
capacity. The NIT is the lowest cost option for increasing port capacity when it becomes
required. When congestion does occur, handling costs will have escalated and trucking
advantages will increase, particularly if Burnside can attract a number of distribution
centres.
From an overall perspective the operating costs can be slightly better than break even
despite the additional handling as long as sufficient captive railcars are provided to
ensure that locally destined freight can go directly to rail. The overall impact on the costs
within the supply chain are detailed in Section 6.0 and summarized in Figure 6.1. A NIT
located at Rocky Lake would provide a reduction in overall costs of $313,000 when the
entire supply chain is considered.
The actual cost to operate the terminal will depend on negotiations amongst the
interested parties and how much each is willing to contribute towards achieving a
positive outcome. That is, it will depend on the cost to acquire the land in a prepared
state, the contribution of various levels of government including HRM, the contribution of
HPA, the cost to operate the shuttle and the terminal after consolidating HIT and NIT,
and the cost of labour and equipment.
It is therefore recommended that the Halifax Port Authority and partners adopt a plan
now, to have a NIT built by the time the port is handling 900,000 TEUs per annum.
Negotiations should begin regarding the Rocky Lake site and some combination of
HRM, HPA and CN should acquire this property in a prepared state.
When the existing terminals are within 1-2 years of reaching capacity, an operating
company should be established. A management strategy should be implemented to
work with stakeholders (terminals, shipping lines, shippers, truckers, labour) to ensure a
smooth transition to the new entity. Consideration should be given to providing the new
entity with short term operating support.
The railway cut, which for the purposes of this discussion can be seen as a link between
the Bayers Road/Bi-High entrance and the Ocean Terminals, can be looked upon as an
underutilized transportation resource within HRM. However, CN has reviewed the
proposed shared operation and determined it to be impractical without significant costs.
Its use as a truckway reduces wear and tear on city streets but requires a $40M
investment to build. There is no financial return which can justify such an investment,
even with projected future truck volumes. The best option for removing trucks from city
streets, reducing GHGs and adding port capacity, is the construction of NIT.

Inlandterminalfinalreport

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Inlandterminalfinalreport

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Final Report

Halifax Inland Terminal and Trucking Options Study

2.0 Current Situation 5

3.0 Best Practices 10

4.0 Vision for New Inland Terminal (NIT) 18

5.0 NIT Site Selection 23

6.0 NIT Concept 52

7.0 Shuttle Operations 65

8.0 The Railway Cut Truckway 75

9.0 Economic Analysis 82

10.0 Stakeholder Consultations 108

11.0 Value Added Opportunities 111

12.0 Value Proposition 114

13.0 Conclusions 115

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

2.0 Current Situation

3.0 Best Practices

4.0 Vision for New Inland Terminal (NIT)

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

located to provide ancillary business opportunities, particularly related to distribution and

5.0 NIT Site Selection

6.0 NIT Design

7.0 Shuttle Operation

The rail shuttle has two basic purposes:

1. Conveyance of locally-destined import containers from the port terminals to NIT.

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

8.0 The Railway Cut Truckway

9.0 Economic Analysis

10.0 Stakeholder Consultations

11.0 Value Added Opportunities

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

12.0 Value Proposition

However, there is not enough congestion at either container terminal or in downtown

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

A second concept is the development of an exclusive truckway connecting the South

The study examines 1) the economic analysis of an inland terminal; 2) an operational

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

There could be a considerable economic development upside to this opportunity, which

In addition, each stakeholder has its own unique objectives:

1.2.1 Halifax Regional Municipality

1.2.2 Halifax Port Authority

1.2.4 Container Terminals

1.2.5 Trucking Industry

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

1.2.6 Labour Objectives

1.3 Guiding Principles of the Study

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

2.0 Current Situation

2.2 Infrastructure and Container Handling

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

Montreal, Toronto and the US Midwest, make inland transportation by road

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

Electrical plugs are available on the terminals for temperature-controlled containers

2.3 Halifax Intermodal Terminal (HIT)

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

Port capacity is limited by a number of factors;

2.5 Traffic Distribution

©MariNova Consulting Ltd. January 2006

Bayers Other Truro and South

17% 3% 1% 60% 5% 13%