Port of Vancouver Discussion

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Hold up - we're getting more cruise ship traffic than ever before, but we're also worried about losing passengers to Seattle? Those two would seem to contradict each other.

Rich city problems...

[Migrant_Coconut]

I would suggest that an extra 400-700k tourists/year seems unnecessary - especially if we have to bus them all in from Delta.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by madog222

As the others have said GCT is a terminal operator and tenant of PoV on the federally owned land under the jurisdiction of PoV.

The Port wants a new container terminal with a 3rd operator; GCT operates the existing Roberts Bank container terminal and Vanterm, DP World operates Centerm (and the terminals in Prince Rupert and Nanaimo).

It's the Port's job to enable trade through the port and large projects are generally Port led, such as the recent Centerm expansion. So far GCP has submitted an environmental assessment for the project; they have not submitted the project to the Port yet as would be typical for smaller privately led projects.

GCT touts how their project "will be privately funded" (not specifying fully or partially) and gives no risk to taxpayers. This is at best vague and at worst very misleading.
PoV is not taxpayer funded and self-funds projects from their income from leases and port fees along with private investment, the RBT2 project is no different.
Now IF GCT wants to 100% privately fund the expansion of their terminal PoV could approve the project (and should have no reason not to IF the environmental assessment returns no impacts), it's very clear that PoV won't be funding it. Reading their promotional material I see no indication GCT wants to fully fund a fourth berth themselfs.

GCT is basically trying to get out of paying POV lease rates as they own DP and DP2 will have the cost passed on to GCT. They are trying to force a different narrative in the media like they are a better choice.

[jollyburger]

Well the article said the bridge is already sort of constraining existing cruise ships so it's not just about mega cruise ship capacity.

Silvester said about 90 of the vessels this year will be so big that they will have to wait for the right tide conditions to make it under the Lions Gate Bridge, underlining the need to consider new capacity to accommodate bigger ships.

[Migrant_Coconut]

As madog pointed out, there's still 30% spare capacity at Canada Place, so scheduling ships to wait for low tide doesn't seem to be a big deal; the main reason for a port out in Richmond or Delta would be to attract the megas.

Unrelated question: are there really that many people wanting to spend a day in Skagway or Ketchikan?

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As madog pointed out, there's still 30% spare capacity at Canada Place, so scheduling ships to wait for low tide doesn't seem to be a big deal; the main reason for a port out in Richmond or Delta would be to attract the megas.
Unrelated question: are there really that many people wanting to spend a day in Skagway or Ketchikan?

I meant to say only 30% capacity spare, for 100% utilization with three ships on Canada Place every single day would require a lot of coordination between the different lines, every other port also needs to be scheduled and every line does the itineraries a bit different.

Running to make the tide is a big deal for operations, it often means departing early or arriving late in the day for the last/first Alaska port and running full speed towards Vancouver with little to no spare time. If anything happens and a ship can't make that window there could be 5000-8000 people needing to make last minute flight or hotel changes. AFAIK it hasn't happened yet, my guess for what would happen is divert to Nanaimo or Victoria and the cruise line charters flights to/from YVR.

And yes, it's very popular. Skagway, Ketch, and Juneau have three or four ships in every single day. There are a lot of tours in the towns so it's not just wandering from one souvenir or jewelry shop to the next. Plus Americans really like just being in American.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Eh, sounds like more of an argument for raising the Lions Gate - somewhat cheaper than a brand new port, creates less traffic, and is much more likely to not get buried in environmental reviews and angry First Nations lawsuits.

Originally Posted by madog222

... And yes, it's very popular. Skagway, Ketch, and Juneau have three or four ships in every single day. There are a lot of tours in the towns so it's not just wandering from one souvenir or jewelry shop to the next. Plus Americans really like just being in American.

Fair enough. Maybe those tours are more entertaining when you're an adult.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Fair enough. Maybe those tours are more entertaining when you're an adult.

I thought we had already raised it as much as we could and couldn't do any more, unless I'm wrong about that.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I thought we had already raised it as much as we could and couldn't do any more, unless I'm wrong about that.

Could be. It'll probably come up in some study exploring different options for cruise traffic.

For what it's worth though, the cruise industry mostly creates low-wage seasonal jobs, and the passengers apparently spend less than regular tourists (activist group called "Stand.earth" though, so take it with a grain of salt); Victoria, Venice and Barcelona are all thinking about a cap on ships per year. Maybe the current level is good enough?

[madog222]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I thought we had already raised it as much as we could and couldn't do any more, unless I'm wrong about that.

Yup, any increase to clearance at the 1st Narrows would be replacing the bridge.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Eh, sounds like more of an argument for raising the Lions Gate - somewhat cheaper than a brand new port, creates less traffic, and is much more likely to not get buried in environmental reviews and angry First Nations lawsuits.

Yeah, even though I proposed the Park Royal Port earlier, it's probably best to just use that for some other industrial land. (I don't think we need that pitch and putt that much).

I'm not sure how bad having to move around the Capilano River would be for the environment though. It's a relatively small segment, and it's not like it's being turned 90 degrees or something.


Raising Lions' Gate (and maybe dredging some of the First Narrows) would be good for not just for the cruise ships, but also the cargo ships (so you can expand more in Burrard Inlet instead of Deltaport).


That's the first priority.
They can expand Canada Place into the sea space at the convention center (the Harbour Air Planes can move west if necessary).

That probably wouldn't allow them to open up the green roof on top of it into a park as part of the plan, but we can dream.

Fair enough. Maybe those tours are more entertaining when you're an adult.

How old are you?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by madog222

Yup, any increase to clearance at the 1st Narrows would be replacing the bridge.

You can raise the Lions Gate Bridge by making the towers taller from the bottom, then lengthening the steep section leading up to the bridge from the Stanley Park side.
This sort of thing has been done before.

The gradient is surprisingly fine from the other end.

It would shut the bridge down for a while, though. That might be the bigger problem.


It's also theoretically possible to just raise the deck up to higher up on the tower to avoid having to shut the bridge down, but that would narrow the bridge deck, as the towers converge towards each other higher up.
It also looks ugly, IMO.

[Migrant_Coconut]

River mouths are critical habitat; even if they somehow don't disturb the wildlife and greenspace, they'll definitely disturb the humans that care about the wildlife and greenspace, so Ambleside is probably staying put.

Took an Alaskan cruise when I was ten. I have not been ten for a long, long time, but have also not gone to Alaska since, hence "when you're an adult." Seems pretty straightforward.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I thought we had already raised it as much as we could and couldn't do any more, unless I'm wrong about that.

Unless I've missed something in the last fifty-plus years, I don't recall it ever being raised. The north viaduct was rebuilt in the seventies and the suspension decks were replaced in 2000, but as far as I know, the towers remain the same.

Originally Posted by fredinno

You can raise the Lions Gate Bridge by making the towers taller from the bottom, then lengthening the steep section leading up to the bridge from the Stanley Park side.
This sort of thing has been done before.

The gradient is surprisingly fine from the other end.

It would shut the bridge down for a while, though. That might be the bigger problem.


It's also theoretically possible to just raise the deck up to higher up on the tower to avoid having to shut the bridge down, but that would narrow the bridge deck, as the towers converge towards each other higher up.
It also looks ugly, IMO.

Theory is one thing, putting it into practice is another. The bridge is eighty-five years old and there are limits as to what can be done with it. While the IWM has added suicide barriers, the LGB did not because of the increased wind load. To quote a 2012 engineering report:

....we expect that strengthening would be required to at least the main towers and cable bent, the bracing in the deck, and possibly the truss bottom chords in the deck, as well as the foundations and cable anchorages. We believe that the total cost of this project could easily exceed $100 million.

That's just to add suicide railings. The report also indicates that the replacement decks in 2000 were designed to strictly minimize added weight in order to avoid having to strengthen the main towers, cable bent, main cable and anchorages.


EDIT http://docs.openinfo.gov.bc.ca/Response_Package_FIN-2017-71913.pdf

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Unless I've missed something in the last fifty-plus years, I don't recall it ever being raised. The north viaduct was rebuilt in the seventies and the suspension decks were replaced in 2000, but as far as I know, the towers remain the same.

You're probably right, I heard that somewhere but I can't find a source so it's probably malarkey.

Aaaaand it begins...

Environmental alliance launches legal challenge against expansion of B.C. container port
Group files for judicial review of Roberts Bank Terminal project under Canadian Environmental Assessment Ac0

A group of Canadian conservationists says it has launched a legal challenge against Ottawa's $2 billion plan for an expanded container terminal in Delta, B.C.

The David Suzuki Foundation, Georgia Strait Alliance, Raincoast Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Committee say they have filed an application for a judicial review in federal court under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

"The federal government has failed Canadians by approving this new terminal. Their own environmental review showed this project could condemn southern resident killer whales, and the chinook salmon they depend on, to extinction," said Jeffery Young, senior science and policy analyst for the David Suzuki Foundation.

The 2020 report by a federal review panel found a new terminal would result in the destruction of the protected killer whale's critical habitat.

But in April, Ottawa announced it had approved the expansion plans — which would see an additional 2.4 million 20-foot shipping containers go through the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 each year — saying the move will open up Canada's throttled marine supply chain.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said at that time that ports are forecast to be approaching capacity by the early 2030s and the expanded terminal will increase capacity by 60 per cent.

"More than $275 billion of trade passes through the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority every year. Canada's Pacific Gateway is the country's most important trade corridor," Wilkinson said.

The conservation groups argue that some of the largest salmon runs in the world migrate through Roberts Bank as juveniles and adults and that the Salish Sea provides critical habitat for the remaining 73 endangered southern resident killer whales.

"What's the purpose of laws to protect the public, the environment and wildlife from irreversible harm if the government continuously overrides them in the name of supposed 'economic' benefits?" said Charlotte Dawe, conservation and policy campaigner for the Wilderness Committee.

Shayoni Mehta with Ecojustice said according to the Species at Risk Act, the project cannot be deemed lawful.

"We urge the government to adhere to its own laws," Mehta said.

The campaigner says all involved parties will now exchange evidence and written submissions, and a hearing could be scheduled later this year.

"The litigation itself does not prevent the proponent beginning construction, but this project also requires B.C.'s approval and additional federal permits before it can proceed," she said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...rts-bank-terminal-vancouver-bc-1.6851783

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Unless I've missed something in the last fifty-plus years, I don't recall it ever being raised. The north viaduct was rebuilt in the seventies and the suspension decks were replaced in 2000, but as far as I know, the towers remain the same.



Theory is one thing, putting it into practice is another. The bridge is eighty-five years old and there are limits as to what can be done with it. While the IWM has added suicide barriers, the LGB did not because of the increased wind load. To quote a 2012 engineering report:



That's just to add suicide railings. The report also indicates that the replacement decks in 2000 were designed to strictly minimize added weight in order to avoid having to strengthen the main towers, cable bent, main cable and anchorages.


EDIT http://docs.openinfo.gov.bc.ca/Response_Package_FIN-2017-71913.pdf

Technically, this wouldn't be changing the deck, it would be changing the tower.

Also, you'd have to shut the bridge down completely anyways probably, allowing for way more extensive upgrades, as the report you cite indicates would be needed for improved suicide barriers.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

personally i would like to see a replacement bridge, mimicking the original. i would do 6 lanes. 3 top + 3 bottom lanes. through stanley park i would keep the lanes stacked but have them go underground into a tunnel. get rid of the cars on the surface. have it go more straight onto georgia and come up to grade somewhere before denman.

on the north side a 3+3 tunnel that directly connects to the upper levels.

it would improve stanley park, traffic clam the streets in north van, improve the crossing, and give more clearance to the port. win-win-win.

though this will never happen.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

personally i would like to see a replacement bridge, mimicking the original. i would do 6 lanes. 3 top + 3 bottom lanes. through stanley park i would keep the lanes stacked but have them go underground into a tunnel. get rid of the cars on the surface. have it go more straight onto georgia and come up to grade somewhere before denman.
...
though this will never happen.

In the 90s when the deck was replaced with a wider 3 lane deck, one of the rejcted proposals was for a double decking of the bridge and causeway.
In order to accomodate the increased load, additions would have been added to the tops of the towers, increasing their heights (but I don't thnk the bridge deck would have been any higher above the water).

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Technically, this wouldn't be changing the deck, it would be changing the tower.

Also, you'd have to shut the bridge down completely anyways probably, allowing for way more extensive upgrades, as the report you cite indicates would be needed for improved suicide barriers.

This concept should be in an "Infrastructure Fantasy Fantasy" forum. Yes, if you remove the bridge decks, reinforce the towers, strengthen or replace the foundations, replace the cables, cable mounts, and all other support structures, demolish and rebuild the north viaduct, adjust the connecting roads to match, and everything else involved in making this possible - including rerouting traffic and dealing with the resultant vehicular nightmare for the year or more likely years this would probably take - you could raise the Lions Gate Bridge. You could also cut a canal through Second Beach and Lost Lagoon, for that matter, since it would probably be more cost-effective.

[madog222]

The Bridge of Theseus