Port of Vancouver Discussion

[jollyburger]

This was the report on Deltaport expansion and the associated changes for the road/rail networks around there

Based on the information referenced in this memo, noting the relatively small (<3%) contribution of road traffic at specific congestion points like the George Massey Tunnel, GCT reaffirms that truck traffic outside the lease boundaries should not be included in the DP4 assessment. DP4 is anticipated to have 40 to 50% net change to various segments of rail track, nevertheless, GCT is confident that existing railway management is sufficient and that rail operations outside GCT’s care and control should be excluded from the DP4 assessment

https://projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/api/publi...adAndRail_for_EAO_IAAC_v2.0_20210824.pdf

[mcj]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Lots of incremental upgrades aimed at ensuring the land ops don't cause a bottleneck. It's called the Gateway Project:

https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content...am-Procurement-and-DB-Approach-FINAL.pdf

Is that the Harris Road Underpass on the first page of that doc?

Doesn't seem like any of the current projects listed on that doc will improve the rail corridor to Deltaport.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

This was the report on Deltaport expansion and the associated changes for the road/rail networks around there

https://projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/api/publi...adAndRail_for_EAO_IAAC_v2.0_20210824.pdf

So they acknowledge that the rail system will be able to handle DP4 alone (without even considering the Roberts Bank expansion), but basically chalk it up to "it's not our problem" if it can't. Seems to me like we'll see a greater increase in truck traffic than anticipated until the rail network is sorted out, yippie!

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by mcj

Is that the Harris Road Underpass on the first page of that doc?

Doesn't seem like any of the current projects listed on that doc will improve the rail corridor to Deltaport.

As I understand it, he identified choke points are not the rail corridor at deltaport, but further up the system, hence the improvements planned for Harris, Holdom and a few others.

[fredinno]

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/new-cruise-ship-terminal-metro-vancouver-port-larger-ships

In 2019, the port authority was in the process of studying the feasibility of building a new additional cruise ship terminal at a new location in Metro Vancouver, outside of Burrard Inlet, that could handle large ships. At the time, it was stated the locations being explored were on the Fraser River in Richmond or Delta.

Public consultation was scheduled to begin in 2020, but the pandemic interrupted the timeline for seriously considering the idea.

In an email to Daily Hive Urbanized upon inquiry, the port authority hinted it will circle back on its push to build a new cruise ship terminal for larger ships at some point in the future.

It's started again.

Personally, I don't see the point of having a new berth in Richmond vs just raising the Lions' Gate.
I guess they're concerned all the involved parties wouldn't agree (especially since it would likely shut down the bridge for a while.)

But even with that, Downtown is really the only place that has the business density to host cruise ships. Also, no one wants to get off at Richmond or Delta. They got rid of Ballantyne Pier for a reason.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by fredinno

But even with that, Downtown is really the only place that has the business density to host cruise ships. Also, no one wants to get off at Richmond or Delta.

Vancouver is a turnaround port for disembarkation/embarkation. The vast majority of passengers are headed to/from the airport or a hotel.

Originally Posted by fredinno

They got rid of Ballantyne Pier for a reason.

Yes, and that reason was container terminal expansion.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by madog222

Vancouver is a turnaround port for disembarkation/embarkation. The vast majority of passengers are headed to/from the airport or a hotel.


Yes, and that reason was container terminal expansion.

And are there many hotels in say, Steveston or Delta?

There's no infrastructure to support them nearby in any of these places. You either have to take them via bus to some kind of hub, or go on a car rental/taxi. Not optimal.

The airport is also a SkyTrain ride away from Downtown.



It only took 4% of cruise port passengers, and reviews were generally quite negative due to its distance from anything.
Also, it was initially redeveloped into a warehouse in 2014 before being demolished for the container terminal expansion.

https://www.kiewit.com/projects/ballantyne-pier-redevelopment/

Also, if we're going to see bigger ships, it stands to reason that the bigger ships will eventually become the standard (because of greater efficiency.)
So having one on the Fraser means retiring Canada Place eventually.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by fredinno

And are there many hotels in say, Steveston or Delta?

There's no infrastructure to support them nearby in any of these places. You either have to take them via bus to some kind of hub, or go on a car rental/taxi. Not optimal.

The airport is also a SkyTrain ride away from Downtown.

Yes of course the downtown terminal is great in most respects but a Richmond terminal would be pretty standard location wise for big city ports now.

There are already countless motorcoach buses supporting the current operation so Richmond would actually be better for those going straight to/from the airport. Those staying in Vancouver for a few days can still stay downtown or wherever else and taxi.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Also, if we're going to see bigger ships, it stands to reason that the bigger ships will eventually become the standard (because of greater efficiency.)
So having one on the Fraser means retiring Canada Place eventually.

More or less yes, that's how things look to be going for most top tier cruise lines. It really only makes sense to build one class of ship at a time then after ~5-10 years move on to the next class with each getting a bit bigger. The older ships get retired ~20 years old (sold to lower tier lines) with a more or less constant fleet size while continually building new ships.

There are a few ships serving Vancouver over that last few years which are only able to clear LGB at lower tides. Specially thinking of one, I can't say that requirement was specifically designed but port analysis is 100% part of the ship design process and the company is very familiar with Vancouver operations.

That said there will always be smaller ships from the less than top tier and specialty/luxury lines, Canada Place will have significant use for the foreseeable future regardless of what happens with a Fraser terminal.

But really who knows what the industry will look like in 20-30 years.

[connect2source]

The same scenario is becoming commonplace all over the world. In Europe, if you're on a megaship, you're very likely to dock in an industrial area far from the city centre and attractions and you'll likely be bussed into the city. This is why smaller ships are becoming so much more appealing for many travellers. Docking, with the ability to simply walk into a town or city is a massive advantage, having recently done an Eastern Mediterranean cruise on a smaller ship.

I don't see Canada Place ever being retired for this reason, it will simply become a more premium experience visited by smaller, more upmarket ships and cruise lines as Madog222 stated.

Megaships cater to the more mainstream crowd looking for a themepark experience and less concerned about the ports and immersive cultural experiences. That's why you see most of them deployed on short Caribbean or Mediterranean itineraries these days. If you do visit a smaller port on a megaship, you'll likely have to deal with the complexities and delays of tendering.

The cruise industry isn't simply transitioning the megeships but diversifying and evolving. Vancouver is already considered a more 'premium' experience over Seattle and will likely continue to evolve that way catering to the smaller ships on mainstream cruise lines and likely more to premium lines like Azamara, Oceania, Viking, Regent, Silversea and others.

[Tvisforme]

Would it be even remotely possible to build a terminal for a few cruise ships at Ambleside? It sounds far-fetched, yes, but the eastern portion of the park is perhaps the only land close to downtown without passing under the LGB that is not subject to the whims of an established NIMBY residential population (ie West Van can't say "no"). The Squamish Nation has said that they intend to develop their lands, including the Capilano reserve, and they are interested in commercial and industrial uses in addition to residential.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by connect2source

The same scenario is becoming commonplace all over the world. In Europe, if you're on a megaship, you're very likely to dock in an industrial area far from the city centre and attractions and you'll likely be bussed into the city. This is why smaller ships are becoming so much more appealing for many travellers. Docking, with the ability to simply walk into a town or city is a massive advantage, having recently done an Eastern Mediterranean cruise on a smaller ship.

I don't see Canada Place ever being retired for this reason, it will simply become a more premium experience visited by smaller, more upmarket ships and cruise lines as Madog222 stated.

Megaships cater to the more mainstream crowd looking for a themepark experience and less concerned about the ports and immersive cultural experiences. That's why you see most of them deployed on short Caribbean or Mediterranean itineraries these days. If you do visit a smaller port on a megaship, you'll likely have to deal with the complexities and delays of tendering.

The cruise industry isn't simply transitioning the megeships but diversifying and evolving. Vancouver is already considered a more 'premium' experience over Seattle and will likely continue to evolve that way catering to the smaller ships on mainstream cruise lines and likely more to premium lines like Azamara, Oceania, Viking, Regent, Silversea and others.

Well, the Port is also concerned about not being able to properly compete with Seattle.

There's also the fact that cargo ships face the same problems are cruise lines- and the more the port facilities in the Inlet are expanded, the less we have to destroy Roberts Bank for more port facilities.


The expansion of Canada Place cost $80M, while the deck replacement for Lions Gate cost $86.5M.
https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/features/ports-canada-place-expands-berthing/
http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2009/pdf/Matson.pdf
These projects were done at around the same time, so there's no difference from inflation.

Even though the scale would be much greater for both, the implication is that the cost difference probably isn't as massive as most people think it is.

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Would it be even remotely possible to build a terminal for a few cruise ships at Ambleside? It sounds far-fetched, yes, but the eastern portion of the park is perhaps the only land close to downtown without passing under the LGB that is not subject to the whims of an established NIMBY residential population (ie West Van can't say "no"). The Squamish Nation has said that they intend to develop their lands, including the Capilano reserve, and they are interested in commercial and industrial uses in addition to residential.

Theoretically? Yes. It would require reclamation to get rid of the sandbanks there, and the construction of substantial new infrastructure, but it should be possible.

Then again, so would anywhere else other than DT.

[Migrant_Coconut]

An Ambleside terminal is going to depend on traffic to/from downtown, likely meaning the Lions Gate would need an upgrade anyway (and hence defeating the purpose). It'll probably be Canada Place or nothing.

Though if we're talking wild ideas, we could put a terminal on a VLFS, park it somewhere in English Bay and turn the inukshuk into a pier...

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

An Ambleside terminal is going to depend on traffic to/from downtown, likely meaning the Lions Gate would need an upgrade anyway (and hence defeating the purpose). It'll probably be Canada Place or nothing.

Though if we're talking wild ideas, we could put a terminal on a VLFS, park it somewhere in English Bay and turn the inukshuk into a pier...

The Skytrain going across towards Norgate would fix that...

[Migrant_Coconut]

At the expense of the rest of the city, but yes.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

An Ambleside terminal is going to depend on traffic to/from downtown, likely meaning the Lions Gate would need an upgrade anyway (and hence defeating the purpose). It'll probably be Canada Place or nothing.

Though if we're talking wild ideas, we could put a terminal on a VLFS, park it somewhere in English Bay and turn the inukshuk into a pier...

The Squamish Nation has already shown with Senakw that they can ignore the NIMBYs in the rest of the city and move ahead on contentious project on IR land. I also understand that they will be getting the land back from the lions gate treatment plant once the new north shore treatment plant is complete. This doesn't seem like a suitable place for a cruise ship terminal though, since I imagine it would be very difficult to dock a ship while the tide is running fast through the first narrows.

[Migrant_Coconut]

And I imagine a breakwater would make the tide even worse. Like I said, if we're that desperate, it's time to look at a floating seaport somewhere off the coast of Second Beach or Kitsilano (which is about as practical).

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by scottN

The Squamish Nation has already shown with Senakw that they can ignore the NIMBYs in the rest of the city and move ahead on contentious project on IR land. I also understand that they will be getting the land back from the lions gate treatment plant once the new north shore treatment plant is complete. This doesn't seem like a suitable place for a cruise ship terminal though, since I imagine it would be very difficult to dock a ship while the tide is running fast through the first narrows.

I don't get it.
Are tidal currents especially strong through the First Narrows?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I don't get it.
Are tidal currents especially strong through the First Narrows?

Captain Edward Stamp abandoned construction of his mill on a site near Brockton Point in 1865 because the strength of the tidal flow was too great to allow the loading ships and log booms to be securely moored. He moved to a better location up the Inlet to establish Hastings Mill where the foot of Dunlevy is today.

[Migrant_Coconut]

You’ve got over a billion cubic metres of seawater rushing through two narrow chokepoints (hence the name) twice a day - not Ripple Rock, but not particularly gentle either.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by scottN

....This doesn't seem like a suitable place for a cruise ship terminal though, since I imagine it would be very difficult to dock a ship while the tide is running fast through the first narrows.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And I imagine a breakwater would make the tide even worse....

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You’ve got over a billion cubic metres of seawater rushing through two narrow chokepoints (hence the name) twice a day - not Ripple Rock, but not particularly gentle either.

Thanks, can't believe I forgot to take into account the tides, especially since we used to bring a sailboat through there on a regular basis.