Solving the Metro Vancouver Industrial Land Shortage?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Filling in the river is done quite a bit: Iona is only connected to YVR due to infill, Annacis and Mitchell Island was once largely river and was extensively infilled for industrial land, Richmond Island was infilled and connected to mainland Vancouver Dunsumir Island has basically vanished and been merged with Sea Island...

Also, birds don't use the Fraser River channels to rest on the Pacific flyway.

The planned 3rd runway is a parallel runway. What are you talking about? They also have a planned connector between all 3 runways for taxing as well, across Grant McConachie Way.

I was thinking something like this:

Red is industrial, Black is reclaimed land and new rail spur, white is extended 3rd runway after merger with Swishwash Island (likely requiring channelization of the river close to Richmond there.)

Also, less reclamation is needed overall. Also, the north reclamation area isn't free-flowing anyways and is primarily used to store logs.

But this isn't 1890 anymore - that kind of reclamation is now frowned upon. Same reason you think we can't do the estuary runway.
They're actually planning the opposite, just in case you missed it - poking holes in the causeway to allow the Fraser to flow out and create mudflats and salmon migration routes. So yeah, the McDonald Slough will indeed be bird habitat and salmon highway (eventually), and that plan kills any potential infill in the cradle. Edit: ninja'ed by madog. Oh well.

Nah, I got it the first time; by parallel, I mean sitting beside each other. Can't help but notice that your new south runway flattens the smaller airlines' infrastructure... granted, opening up the north field allows them to relocate, but that's still pretty disruptive compared to the alternatives.

While I'm not an expert on ATC, I'm guessing that most commercial jets need most of the runway to take off or land. So if you have two runways next to each other, traffic on the outer runway will likely have to taxi across the inner runway (meaning the inner is effectively closed down until the plane reaches the other side), whereas the officially-planned third runway can operate independently. That would explain why most airports have their landing strips evenly spread around the terminal, or if they can't, they'll open a new terminal next to the new strip. Visual reference here.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by madog222

No, filling the river is was done to some extent in the past.

This is was is to happen on Iona in the near future.

From Metro Vancouver http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...anJuly2021.pdf

The actual report that comes from appears to be a conceptual "like to do" without any firm timetable or plans, similar to all the rest of the ecological restoration stuff in that image. (also, not sure how you breach Iona Jetty without causing major issues). The main focus is on the sewage plant.
Considering how Metro Van can barely get Surrey Bend Park up and running properly, I'm not holding my breath for most of the stuff in that image to exist in the foreseeable future.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The actual report that comes from appears to be a conceptual "like to do" without any firm timetable or plans, similar to all the rest of the ecological restoration stuff in that image. (also, not sure how you breach Iona Jetty without causing major issues). The main focus is on the sewage plant.
Considering how Metro Van can barely get Surrey Bend Park up and running properly, I'm not holding my breath for most of the stuff in that image to exist in the foreseeable future.

Yes its still a conceptual design, in March if approved they will move to preliminary designs. The ecological restoration has been fairly consistent thought the preliminary designs so I'm hopeful we will see the entire proposed scope in the final designs. A lot of it is required for the remediation anyways.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...s/default.aspx

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by madog222

Yes its still a conceptual design, in March if approved they will move to preliminary designs. The ecological restoration has been fairly consistent thought the preliminary designs so I'm hopeful we will see the entire proposed scope in the final designs. A lot of it is required for the remediation anyways.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...s/default.aspx

Hopefully. Not hopeful for them to actually follow through though. There are higher priorities around, and there would seem to be technical challenges with trying to open the jetties and causeway.

Also, there may be some unforeseen environmental downsides to opening up the Iona Island Causeway. The banks downstream of it have been blocked off and silted up for several decades at this point; opening up the water could actually end up causing more damage.


I would point out though that technically, you could still reclaim most of McDonald Slough and still keep the narrow channel depicted in the concept for a bit of water to flow through to feed the Banks downstream.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But this isn't 1890 anymore - that kind of reclamation is now frowned upon. Same reason you think we can't do the estuary runway.
They're actually planning the opposite, just in case you missed it - poking holes in the causeway to allow the Fraser to flow out and create mudflats and salmon migration routes. So yeah, the McDonald Slough will indeed be bird habitat and salmon highway (eventually), and that plan kills any potential infill in the cradle. Edit: ninja'ed by madog. Oh well.

Nah, I got it the first time; by parallel, I mean sitting beside each other. Can't help but notice that your new south runway flattens the smaller airlines' infrastructure... granted, opening up the north field allows them to relocate, but that's still pretty disruptive compared to the alternatives.

While I'm not an expert on ATC, I'm guessing that most commercial jets need most of the runway to take off or land. So if you have two runways next to each other, traffic on the outer runway will likely have to taxi across the inner runway (meaning the inner is effectively closed down until the plane reaches the other side), whereas the officially-planned third runway can operate independently. That would explain why most airports have their landing strips evenly spread around the terminal, or if they can't, they'll open a new terminal next to the new strip. Visual reference here.

I don't understand how the YVR's proposed southern 3rd Runway avoids the problems you've mentioned. It's at the exact same location. The foreshore runway does not have this problem, but it's probably not serious.



One of the issues with the South Runway is the problem that it wasn't very good for larger aircraft or takeoffs, and that's what I'm trying to solve by just extending it.
The thing is that there's no space for a full runway that doesn't involve some reclamation.


I would like to note as well Richmond Island was infilled in the 2000s, and most of the infills I mentioned were 50s-60s era. Infills are also not uncommon outside the Fraser River area.

Not sure how useful McDonald Slough is for salmon. How many salmon spawn on the shores of the North Arm of the Fraser?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I don't understand how the YVR's proposed southern 3rd Runway avoids the problems you've mentioned. It's at the exact same location. The foreshore runway does not have this problem, but it's probably not serious.

One of the issues with the South Runway is the problem that it wasn't very good for larger aircraft or takeoffs, and that's what I'm trying to solve by just extending it.
The thing is that there's no space for a full runway that doesn't involve some reclamation.

I would like to note as well Richmond Island was infilled in the 2000s, and most of the infills I mentioned were 50s-60s era. Infills are also not uncommon outside the Fraser River area.

Not sure how useful McDonald Slough is for salmon. How many salmon spawn on the shores of the North Arm of the Fraser?

If you'll check the study, even the "long" south parallel runway is planned as arrivals-only, and the "short" one is mostly for the light planes at the south terminal; further reading shows that two combined arrival/departure runways too close to each other means staggered use (because if not, the wake turbulence from planes on one runway starts messing with the planes on the other) and therefore less actual capacity. And cross-traffic is a bigger problem than you'd think: both LAX and YYZ have both had cause to regret this kind of layout over the last couple of decades.

No, there isn't. But some options for reclamation offer less drawbacks for the same benefit than others.

Fair enough. That doesn't mean infill is as favoured as twenty years ago. As for salmon, I believe the adults spawn upriver - it's about creating habitat for fry before they mature and head into the Pacific. We are in the middle of a decades-long salmon deficit.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If you'll check the study, even the "long" south parallel runway is planned as arrivals-only, and the "short" one is mostly for the light planes at the south terminal; further reading shows that two combined arrival/departure runways too close to each other means staggered use (because if not, the wake turbulence from planes on one runway starts messing with the planes on the other) and therefore less actual capacity. And cross-traffic is a bigger problem than you'd think: both LAX and YYZ have both had cause to regret this kind of layout over the last couple of decades.

No, there isn't. But some options for reclamation offer less drawbacks for the same benefit than others.

Fair enough. That doesn't mean infill is as favoured as twenty years ago. As for salmon, I believe the adults spawn upriver - it's about creating habitat for fry before they mature and head into the Pacific. We are in the middle of a decades-long salmon deficit.

The study which *recommends* the South Runway? I never said the new runway is for both arrivals and departures, did I?

Note that only the Foreshore runway meets the requirement of having parallel runways far enough apart from each other, and that's 210000 takeoffs and landings vs South Long's 158000. So 75% max potential capacity.
Note that the current planned 3rd runway may not be long enough (any longer would require infill into the Fraser Middle Arm), as any alt fuel airplanes (Hydrogen, Batteries) WILL be more bulky than current aircraft- there's a reason why we use oil to fuel our airplanes.


Note that any time someone builds a port on the Fraser, the same thing would happen. Not sure how many of us are outraged over ports being built on the Fraser.
And the CBC article points out that as it stands *now*, McDonald Slough is a 'dead zone'.

Not to mention the Salmon are dying due to a hundred other reasons than lack of habitats on the lowest part of the Fraser (like the heat wave last summer).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The study which *recommends* the South Runway? I never said the new runway is for both arrivals and departures, did I?

Note that only the Foreshore runway meets the requirement of having parallel runways far enough apart from each other, and that's 210000 takeoffs and landings vs South Long's 158000. So 75% max potential capacity.
Note that the current planned 3rd runway may not be long enough (any longer would require infill into the Fraser Middle Arm), as any alt fuel airplanes (Hydrogen, Batteries) WILL be more bulky than current aircraft- there's a reason why we use oil to fuel our airplanes.


Note that any time someone builds a port on the Fraser, the same thing would happen. Not sure how many of us are outraged over ports being built on the Fraser.
And the CBC article points out that as it stands *now*, McDonald Slough is a 'dead zone'.

Not to mention the Salmon are dying due to a hundred other reasons than lack of habitats on the lowest part of the Fraser (like the heat wave last summer).

No, the study lays out the options (options which do not include an Extra Long South extending to Swishwash; if you didn’t want to use it for departures too, why bother to extend it that far?); of those options, the Foreshore runway offers the most capacity.
It works out to 6 less planes an hour, which is pretty substantial. And if South Long is arrivals-only, that means South would switch to departures-only; that combo is 158k x2 against 210k x2 for Foreshore and South, or 10+ less planes an hour.

Liquid hydrogen actually has 4x the volume-to-energy ratio of kerosene for 1/3rd the weight (so 12x the efficiency). Electric might be a problem, but I can only assume that H2-powered planes are heavier because some are planning to go halfway around the world without refuelling. The way things are, YVR’s existing runways are already - or will be – as long as they need to be.

There's controversy over Deltaport expansion too... something about Roberts Bank birds and fish in the eelgrass. So then the people in charge need to do some extra homework to figure out the best solution that benefits both people and nature; in the case of YVR, rearranging the mudflats. Filling in the river entirely isn’t even on the table.
It’s a dead zone now. It’ll be a live zone in the near future, unless somebody decides to destroy it when they really didn’t have to.

Various reasons, yes, and one of them is a lack of juveniles surviving to adulthood. We need more solutions, not less solutions - the orcas have already left.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No, the study lays out the options (options which do not include an Extra Long South extending to Swishwash; if you didn’t want to use it for departures too, why bother to extend it that far?); of those options, the Foreshore runway offers the most capacity.
It works out to 6 less planes an hour, which is pretty substantial. And if South Long is arrivals-only, that means South would switch to departures-only; that combo is 158k x2 against 210k x2 for Foreshore and South, or 10+ less planes an hour.

Liquid hydrogen actually has 4x the volume-to-energy ratio of kerosene for 1/3rd the weight (so 12x the efficiency). Electric might be a problem, but I can only assume that H2-powered planes are heavier because some are planning to go halfway around the world without refuelling. The way things are, YVR’s existing runways are already - or will be – as long as they need to be.

There's controversy over Deltaport expansion too... something about Roberts Bank birds and fish in the eelgrass. So then the people in charge need to do some extra homework to figure out the best solution that benefits both people and nature; in the case of YVR, rearranging the mudflats. Filling in the river entirely isn’t even on the table.
It’s a dead zone now. It’ll be a live zone in the near future, unless somebody decides to destroy it when they really didn’t have to.

Various reasons, yes, and one of them is a lack of juveniles surviving to adulthood. We need more solutions, not less solutions - the orcas have already left.

Doesn't matter.
In practice (not theoretical mass-density calculations), H2 tanks and vehicles are still heavier and bulkier than comparable gas vehicles- in this case, due to the mass of the fuel tanks (H2 is not very dense) and secondary batteries. Oil-powered planes can already go halfway around the world without refueling.
(I'm assuming fuel cell, not H2-combustion by the way. H2 combustion produces more NOx than even diesel(https://cea.org.uk/practical-conside...s-natural-gas/) - 3x gas is higher than oil, BTW- and NO2 is not only 300x worse than CO2, but also causes acid rain. So not a green option.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/...0040033924.pdf

By far the overwhelming technology issue for Concept B is the large size and weight of a fuel cell based aircraft propulsion system.

Aggressive airframe technology assumptions, in addition to the 25-30 year fuel cell technology assumptions, are necessary for Concept B to be comparable in takeoff gross weight to a current technology conventional aircraft with the same range and payload capability.

2004, sure, but the main challenges here remain.

I meant Fraser River port expansions, which don't tend to get the same sort of attention because it's more piecemeal despite having similar effects to filling in parts of the river in terms of effects on fish.

Again, I pointed out that opening the waterway may cause more damage overall. We don't know what the effects would be, and this was a major issue brought up regarding the proposal to begin with. Nor that opening up a small channel would even help enough to be worth it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Doesn't matter.
In practice (not theoretical mass-density calculations), H2 tanks and vehicles are still heavier and bulkier than comparable gas vehicles- in this case, due to the mass of the fuel tanks (H2 is not very dense) and secondary batteries. Oil-powered planes can already go halfway around the world without refueling.
(I'm assuming fuel cell, not H2-combustion by the way. H2 combustion produces more NOx than even diesel(https://cea.org.uk/practical-conside...s-natural-gas/) - 3x gas is higher than oil, BTW- and NO2 is not only 300x worse than CO2, but also causes acid rain. So not a green option.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/...0040033924.pdf


2004, sure, but the main challenges here remain.

I meant Fraser River port expansions, which don't tend to get the same sort of attention because it's more piecemeal despite having similar effects to filling in parts of the river in terms of effects on fish.

Again, I pointed out that opening the waterway may cause more damage overall. We don't know what the effects would be, and this was a major issue brought up regarding the proposal to begin with. Nor that opening up a small channel would even help enough to be worth it.

Okay, that would be a problem. Good thing the Foreshore “would provide the required length for current and future aircraft” (presumably including hydrogen and electric planes), and the North and South would be extended to do the same; that’s three capable runways without touching the Fraser itself.

Similar? Can't speak for the fish, but blocking a very small part of the river is significantly different from a complete blocking of an entire branch.

We don’t know, but we can guess. The Fraser flows at about 3,550 cubic metres/second; only 10% flows into the North Arm, which itself is halved into the Middle Arm at YVR.
So if the Upper North Arm gets maybe 178 m3/s, a breach at Iona would be 89 m3/s, or less than the Brunette River; that, after all, is how it flowed for the last century or two before the causeway came along. By contrast, leaving it alone and filling in Swishwash would displace that much among the other two channels on the Arm, which means more relative damage.

Opening the causeway will let water and sediment flow though, and that action alone creates bird and salmon habitat - that sounds like help enough. Honestly, I don’t even know why we have the jetties or causeway in the first place, when a bridge would’ve connected the treatment plant just fine.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Opening the causeway will let water and sediment flow though, and that action alone creates bird and salmon habitat - that sounds like help enough. Honestly, I don’t even know why we have the jetties or causeway in the first place, when a bridge would’ve connected the treatment plant just fine.

Here's the history of Iona. The new plant plan (pretty much for the first time) has involved the Musqueam Nation (who live just across the river). You'll see the existing sewer connections were pushed through to Iona without any consultation - which could never happen today.

The fact that the IR is there is one of the reasons the River channel would never be messed with or filled in - except to try to return it to something closer to how it used to function, through restoration of natural habitat. Those sorts of change have slowly been taking place over many years. For example, the Port Authority management of log storage (waiting to be processed in the dwindling number of mills) changed years ago to move them away from the foreshore, so that they don't rest on the intertidal zone.

[Feathered Friend]

Metro Vancouver hits pause button on South Campbell Heights development proposal
Environmentalists, industry advocates weigh in on Surrey’s plan for industrial expansion

ALEX BROWNEJan. 28, 2022 5:15 p.m.LOCAL NEWSNEWS

Metro Vancouver’s board of directors has sent the proposal for expanding industry into the environmentally sensitive South Campbell Heights area back to the drawing board.

At its virtual meeting Friday (Jan. 28) the board approved, by a narrow 64-61 margin, a motion of referral from director – and Surrey councillor – Linda Annis that sends the proposed amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy back to Metro Vancouver staff for discussion of concerns raised by directors with City of Surrey staff.

The move came despite impassioned pleas from director (and Surrey mayor) Doug McCallum, who attempted, unsuccessfully to have the motion ruled out of order.

“If you refer it, it gets stopped unconditionally,” he said.

Other directors had raised the notion that referring the proposal, submitted by Surrey as an amendment to the 2040 Regional Growth Strategy, essentially kills it for the near future.

Metro Vancouver is in the process of transitioning into its not-yet-approved 2050 strategy, and it’s likely the proposal – to move Metro Vancouver’s urban containment boundary to allow mixed industrial use in the South Campbell Heights/Little Campbell River area – would have to be re-submitted by Surrey as part of the new plan.

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news...ment-proposal/

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news...ment-proposal/

Seriously?
Surrey sent a proposal the residents wanted, and Metro voted it down.
Then they send a proposal closer to Metro's goals, and it gets sent down again.
What do they expect Surrey to do?

Originally Posted by Changing City

The fact that the IR is there is one of the reasons the River channel would never be messed with or filled in - except to try to return it to something closer to how it used to function, through restoration of natural habitat. Those sorts of change have slowly been taking place over many years. For example, the Port Authority management of log storage (waiting to be processed in the dwindling number of mills) changed years ago to move them away from the foreshore, so that they don't rest on the intertidal zone.

So I guess kind of like how Deltaport and the Ferry Terminal would never be expanded because of its proximity to Tsawwassen FN?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Okay, that would be a problem. Good thing the Foreshore “would provide the required length for current and future aircraft” (presumably including hydrogen and electric planes), and the North and South would be extended to do the same; that’s three capable runways without touching the Fraser itself.

Similar? Can't speak for the fish, but blocking a very small part of the river is significantly different from a complete blocking of an entire branch.

We don’t know, but we can guess. The Fraser flows at about 3,550 cubic metres/second; only 10% flows into the North Arm, which itself is halved into the Middle Arm at YVR.
So if the Upper North Arm gets maybe 178 m3/s, a breach at Iona would be 89 m3/s, or less than the Brunette River; that, after all, is how it flowed for the last century or two before the causeway came along. By contrast, leaving it alone and filling in Swishwash would displace that much among the other two channels on the Arm, which means more relative damage.

Opening the causeway will let water and sediment flow though, and that action alone creates bird and salmon habitat - that sounds like help enough. Honestly, I don’t even know why we have the jetties or causeway in the first place, when a bridge would’ve connected the treatment plant just fine.

“would provide the required length for current and future aircraft” (presumably including hydrogen and electric planes)

There's no evidence for that except an inference from a vague statement.

Also, back in the 2000s (when this report was made), the big eco-fuel rave was biofuels.
Then it turned out Biofuels (even algae and cellulose) were impractical, and renewable electricity prices plummeted.
If so, then they're NOT considering the effects of electric airplanes.

Sure- then let's consider what would happen if we let a small passageway for water through and infilled the rest of McDonald Slough. We would get most of the land, and let water through for the banks. We could create new artificial riparian areas on the shores of the smaller channel (opening up the entire channel probably isn't smart anyways, and it's not planned.)
Win-win?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetty

Where a river is narrow near its mouth, has a generally feeble discharge and a small tidal range, the sea is liable on an exposed coast to block up its outlet during severe storms. The river is thus forced to seek another exit at a weak spot of the beach, which along a low coast may be at some distance off; and this new outlet in its turn may be blocked up, so that the river from time to time shifts the position of its mouth. This inconvenient cycle of changes may be stopped by fixing the outlet of the river at a suitable site, by carrying a jetty on each side of this outlet across the beach, thereby concentrating its discharge in a definite channel and protecting the mouth from being blocked up by littoral drift.

https://www2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Data/dwf/P02_desc.pdf

Purpose:

Provision of Navigable Channel and Reduction in Channel Maintenance (dredging)
The jetty provides river training to stabilize an entrance to the North Arm Channel. The
structure works in conjunction with the North Arm Breakwater to help constrain river flow and
increase channel bottom scour across the delta flats. Sediment conveyance is improved and
the need for maintenance dredging up the North Arm Entrance Channel is reduced.

Provision of Shelter
Another function is the provision of shelter during storms in the Strait of Georgia for smaller
vessels, moored barges and log storage areas. The marine community and forest industry
uses the lee side of the jetty as a temporary moorage location for log booms and wood chip
barges scheduled for transport to/from upstream mills.

Construction:
Early 1900’s original construction rock rubble mound with additional rock extensions and
height modifications up until 1951, approximately 7,530 metres in length.

So it DOES actually have some important and beneficial purposes- flood control and navigation.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

So I guess kind of like how Deltaport and the Ferry Terminal would never be expanded because of its proximity to Tsawwassen FN?

The DP4 planners are already walking on eggshells because of the Tsawwassen FN band, and that's a project that won't set reconciliation back fifty years.

Originally Posted by fredinno

There's no evidence for that except an inference from a vague statement.

Also, back in the 2000s (when this report was made), the big eco-fuel rave was biofuels.
Then it turned out Biofuels (even algae and cellulose) were impractical, and renewable electricity prices plummeted.
If so, then they're NOT considering the effects of electric airplanes.

Sure- then let's consider what would happen if we let a small passageway for water through and infilled the rest of McDonald Slough. We would get most of the land, and let water through for the banks. We could create new artificial riparian areas on the shores of the smaller channel (opening up the entire channel probably isn't smart anyways, and it's not planned.)
Win-win?

So it DOES actually have some important and beneficial purposes- flood control and navigation.

Well, is there any reason to suspect the North, South and Foreshore are too short for those types of planes? Because if they are, so is your Extra Long South runway.

That's... really not how mudflats work. The kind of habitat they have in mind pretty much requires the whole thing; imagine a beach at low tide.

I don't see how any of that link applies. Scour means water erosion, and that's for reduced dredging costs, not flood prevention; the first North Arm breach is too far north to offset that, and the second is blocked by marshland; that leaves the third at the causeway, which isn't planned to use up a lot of flow. As mentioned, the logs have been moved at the FNs' request, so that motive is gone too.

And I wasn't aware the breaches were going to be a canal; almost all river traffic will likely still use the main North Arm.

[hollywoodnorth]

a Seattle multi floor proposal >> https://www.track6sodo.com/

2nd multifloor under construction in the US >> https://www.nelsonworldwide.com/proj...ngle-equities/

and the 1st that was completed >> https://www.nelsonworldwide.com/proj...wn-crossroads/

another for Seattle >. https://www.trammellcrow.com/en/proj...l-106-with-tcc

[zahav]

I am all for being environmentally conscious, but the industrial land shortage is so acute, it's infuriating that these politicians are doing this. Our agricultural land is obscenely under-utilized; not only does it take up way too much land but it is so insignificant to our overall food supply. Metro Van should be obligated to go somewhere like Israel or Netherlands where the agriculture is way more intensively developed and the land set aside for agriculture is used to the fullest. So much "agricultural" land in the lower mainland is nothing more than unused fields with a mini junk yard collecting. It's shameful that gets protection. The farms should have a minimum productivity and confirmed contribution to our food supply, otherwise the protected status is a waste. South Campbell Heights is a perfect area for expanding industry since it's already present in this area. I am still shocked when I drive through Delta, Surrey, Langley how much land is still considered agricultural and not developed. I would love to see how Metro Van stacks up againt the other CMAs in Canada in terms of actual agricultural land in the metro core. I can't imagine many others have this much right in the populated areas of the CMAs.. I know Vancouver is different because of the geography and that we don't have the luxury of a huge rural belt around the city the way places like Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, or even Toronto have. But still, I feel like the protection isn't providing many benefits to us. We could grow tomatoes and cucumbers in a vertical hydroponic greenhouse, it doesn't need to take up acres and acres of land that could be used for indsutry.

Ugh, sorry for the rant.. it's 4:45am and I'm kinda high lol

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by zahav

I am all for being environmentally conscious, but the industrial land shortage is so acute, it's infuriating that these politicians are doing this. Our agricultural land is obscenely under-utilized; not only does it take up way too much land but it is so insignificant to our overall food supply. Metro Van should be obligated to go somewhere like Israel or Netherlands where the agriculture is way more intensively developed and the land set aside for agriculture is used to the fullest. So much "agricultural" land in the lower mainland is nothing more than unused fields with a mini junk yard collecting. It's shameful that gets protection. The farms should have a minimum productivity and confirmed contribution to our food supply, otherwise the protected status is a waste. South Campbell Heights is a perfect area for expanding industry since it's already present in this area. I am still shocked when I drive through Delta, Surrey, Langley how much land is still considered agricultural and not developed. I would love to see how Metro Van stacks up againt the other CMAs in Canada in terms of actual agricultural land in the metro core. I can't imagine many others have this much right in the populated areas of the CMAs.. I know Vancouver is different because of the geography and that we don't have the luxury of a huge rural belt around the city the way places like Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, or even Toronto have. But still, I feel like the protection isn't providing many benefits to us. We could grow tomatoes and cucumbers in a vertical hydroponic greenhouse, it doesn't need to take up acres and acres of land that could be used for indsutry.

Ugh, sorry for the rant.. it's 4:45am and I'm kinda high lol

Well, part of the issue for agricultural is that it's controlled by small landholders. Also, rich people try to use the agricultural land as their own country estates, so they only have incentive to hire someone to 'farm' just to meet the ALR requirements.
Also, most ALR land overall in BC is underutilized or utilized- as across the rest of NA and Europe, the price of food in inflation-adjusted terms has fallen below cost, so a lot of 'secondary quality' farmland just goes fallow, and eventually gets reclaimed by nature.
Despite what environmentalists and people in the grocery store think, there's actually a glut of food. It's part of the reason the government subsidizes corn ethanol as well- in order to keep a lot of inland agricultural communities from collapsing by artificially increasing the demand for food domestically.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The DP4 planners are already walking on eggshells because of the Tsawwassen FN band, and that's a project that won't set reconciliation back fifty years.



Well, is there any reason to suspect the North, South and Foreshore are too short for those types of planes? Because if they are, so is your Extra Long South runway.

That's... really not how mudflats work. The kind of habitat they have in mind pretty much requires the whole thing; imagine a beach at low tide.

I don't see how any of that link applies. Scour means water erosion, and that's for reduced dredging costs, not flood prevention; the first North Arm breach is too far north to offset that, and the second is blocked by marshland; that leaves the third at the causeway, which isn't planned to use up a lot of flow. As mentioned, the logs have been moved at the FNs' request, so that motive is gone too.

And I wasn't aware the breaches were going to be a canal; almost all river traffic will likely still use the main North Arm.

OK, then what about the port expansions in Vancouver Harbour? Wouldn't Squamish FN stop that?
I think it's a bit stilly to assume FN will stop a project, especially since FN themselves are building on their land, including in environmentally sensitive areas (Coquitlam FN near Colony Farm, for instance.)

Yeah, I DO suspect they may be too short as well.

I don't see any mudflats in Mcdonald Slough.
The only 'flats' are the tidal flats behind the sewage plant- which would be kept watered by the new canal.

Yeah, but navigation IS why you dredge. Dredging isn't good for the environment either.
Silt blocks water too. If a river gets too silty, it tends to move to a new location. That's how you get islands. And the banks. And eventually land.

You would think that if the jetty was useless, they wouldn't be drilling narrow passageways through it, and would just get rid of it entirely instead?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

OK, then what about the port expansions in Vancouver Harbour? Wouldn't Squamish FN stop that?
I think it's a bit stilly to assume FN will stop a project, especially since FN themselves are building on their land, including in environmentally sensitive areas (Coquitlam FN near Colony Farm, for instance.)

Yeah, I DO suspect they may be too short as well.

I don't see any mudflats in Mcdonald Slough.
The only 'flats' are the tidal flats behind the sewage plant- which would be kept watered by the new canal.

Yeah, but navigation IS why you dredge. Dredging isn't good for the environment either.
Silt blocks water too. If a river gets too silty, it tends to move to a new location. That's how you get islands. And the banks. And eventually land.

You would think that if the jetty was useless, they wouldn't be drilling narrow passageways through it, and would just get rid of it entirely instead?

Vancouver Harbour isn't a river habitat, nor through the FNs' backyard. Senakw provides revenue and homes. Iona is literally next door and affects their food and water supply; fill in part of the river for the sake of a few planes and no direct benefit? No way.
Hell, the colonizers don't particularly want it either. Both Vancouver and Richmond have shot down additional north and south runways.

Any numbers, stats, specs, estimates? YVR's not changing their plans on a random internet hunch; the runway extensions are already much longer than the Transport Canada requirements.

Opening a breach allows the Fraser to carry dirt from upriver through the gaps, which creates mudflats in the Slough. That's called sedimentation.

Rivers don't silt up and relocate unless the flow rate is super low and the mud can settle. The Fraser would continue to scour both through the north arm and through the breaches at 44 m3/s or more - where else would all the water and earth go but out?
Worst that happens is the slough fills up, flow is reduced to a stream... and then most of the water flows out the North Arm as usual.

Two wrongs don't make a right - both nature and people have gotten used to the jetties. Might as well just tweak them a little further.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Vancouver Harbour isn't a river habitat, nor through the FNs' backyard. Senakw provides revenue and homes. Iona is literally next door and affects their food and water supply; fill in part of the river for the sake of a few planes and no direct benefit? No way.
Hell, the colonizers don't particularly want it either. Both Vancouver and Richmond have shot down additional north and south runways.

Any numbers, stats, specs, estimates? YVR's not changing their plans on a random internet hunch; the runway extensions are already much longer than the Transport Canada requirements.

Opening a breach allows the Fraser to carry dirt from upriver through the gaps, which creates mudflats in the Slough. That's called sedimentation.

Rivers don't silt up and relocate unless the flow rate is super low and the mud can settle. The Fraser would continue to scour both through the north arm and through the breaches at 44 m3/s or more - where else would all the water and earth go but out?
Worst that happens is the slough fills up, flow is reduced to a stream... and then most of the water flows out the North Arm as usual.

Two wrongs don't make a right - both nature and people have gotten used to the jetties. Might as well just tweak them a little further.

Was actually referring to https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...pply-1.4771849 (which is on environmentally sensitive marshlands) and the industrial lot on the Squamish FN on the First Narrows (couldn't find an article on it though, seems the development was shelved.) Possibly the UEL FN development (to a lesser extent, it's not environmentally sensitive, but it is still parklands.)

My point is that IMO the FN care a lot less about environmentalism when they're the ones getting paid for it.


I gave you it with the NASA report. They're still in the 'far future' phase, but at this point, so is the runway.

It's like expecting TransLink to consider the effects of autonomous vehicles in the year 2000 (not to mention the YVR report itself is old.) Only now are the vehicles you would need for this being seriously considered- and they're running into the same issues the NASA report pointed out because the physics don't change, and batteries have not yet quintupled in energy density since then.

Rivers don't silt up and relocate unless the flow rate is super low and the mud can settle. The Fraser would continue to scour both through the north arm and through the breaches at 44 m3/s or more - where else would all the water and earth go but out?

Yeah, except without the jetty, you don't have as much control to where the 'out' is.

Note that both the North and South Arms have jetties as well.

Not sure why you'd go through the effort of building them on both of the Fraser's exits if they had no use.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Was actually referring to https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...pply-1.4771849 (which is on environmentally sensitive marshlands) and the industrial lot on the Squamish FN on the First Narrows (couldn't find an article on it though, seems the development was shelved.) Possibly the UEL FN development (to a lesser extent, it's not environmentally sensitive, but it is still parklands.)

My point is that IMO the FN care a lot less about environmentalism when they're the ones getting paid for it.


I gave you it with the NASA report. They're still in the 'far future' phase, but at this point, so is the runway.

It's like expecting TransLink to consider the effects of autonomous vehicles in the year 2000 (not to mention the YVR report itself is old.) Only now are the vehicles you would need for this being seriously considered- and they're running into the same issues the NASA report pointed out because the physics don't change, and batteries have not yet quintupled in energy density since then.




Yeah, except without the jetty, you don't have as much control to where the 'out' is.

Note that both the North and South Arms have jetties as well.

Not sure why you'd go through the effort of building them on both of the Fraser's exits if they had no use.

There's a sizable difference between "near marshland" and "on marshland" - same reason why South Campbell is on hiatus. Trees (like Lelem and Senakw) are a tradeoff for the FN, but rivers are essential.
Do you mean the Lions Gate wastewater plant? They're actually moving it out of the reserve.

As in the same NASA study whose estimates "must satisfy constraints on landing and takeoff field length, approach speed, takeoff and missed approach climb gradients, and rate-of-climb capability at top of climb?" No matter how far into the future we're looking, Boeing, Airbus et al are not going to design commercial airliners that can't take off or land at most airports their clients use, and I don't see JFK or Changi extending their runways.

There's really only two places to go - through the North Arm, or through the south breach. Spilling onto YVR or Southlands would more or less require water to flow uphill.
I'll link it one more time: apparently they were concerned about waste getting washed up against the causeway.