Port of Vancouver Discussion

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

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.

How is that worse than building a new terminal in Richmond or Delta?

Sure, the Lions' Gate reconstruction is probably more expensive, but there aren't any good sites or infrastructure in Richmond or Delta either.


The only place wide and large enough for such a terminal without going into the banks is on the South Arm of the Fraser- in basically the industrial middle of nowhere.

Infrastructure on the Port-owned port lands on the Fraser for the cruise ships (even just sufficient roads for the buses) is also highly limited.
You're basically creating another, worse, Ballydyne Pier- a terminal that basically everyone who experienced it hated because it was in the middle of nowhere.

Again, there are benefits for the cargo industry too, so I wouldn't be surprised if the cost-benefit ratio of raising the bridge deck ultimately ended up benefitting the bridge raise over the new terminal.




Ultimately, there are very few 'good' options here, just 'less bad' ones.

[NewfBC]

A lot of fantasy talk for a bridge that's supposed to close to vehicle traffic by 2030 (pending construction of a replacement)...

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/lions-gate-bridge-close-vehicle-traffic-2030-government-agreement

Ron.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by fredinno

a terminal ... in the middle of nowhere.

That's almost everywhere else in the world these days.

[fredinno]

Note also that the largest cargo ships also have a maximum air draft around 60m.

If Lions' Gate is a problem for Cruise Ships now, it'll be a problem for cargo ships in 10 years.

May as well fix the problem now rather than doing it twice.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

A lot of fantasy talk for a bridge that's supposed to close to vehicle traffic by 2030 (pending construction of a replacement)...

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/lions-gate-bridge-close-vehicle-traffic-2030-government-agreement

Ron.

There were a lot of misunderstandings about that agreement; then-Minister of Transportation Todd Stone, in an April 2015 report from City News, said:

“my understanding is it’s not a legally binding document. And… as far as I’m aware, the understanding was that this was predicated on there being a construction of a new third crossing...This is absolutely not going to happen. The province has no plans whatsoever to decommission the use of the Lions Gate Bridge”.

Around the same time, a Global News article reported that Keith Baldrey believed the "agreement" resurfaced as part of attempts to undermine the “YES” side in TransLink's transit plebiscite:

“I think some media outlets got played by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation,” says Baldrey. “This goes back more than 15 years. It had no credibility back then, it had no credibility between then and now, but it got a little life breathed into it today, and I think Jordan Bateman’s probably happy he got this much media attention.”

[cairnstone]

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.



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

There is more than the bridge why they want another terminal. The existing design really does suck for efficiency in restocking the ships when they enter the births. On busy days its a zoo below level and bursting at the seams. Moving out of DT allows for development of a better system to manage vessel turn around.

As to rasing the bridge love to see how that would fly and the cost to doing that. In theory the viaduct has an expiry date set by parks board. 25 yeas ago when they modernized the bridge it was only suppose to last so long and another crossing was supposed to replace it. Doubt that will happen.

Also another terminal will spread some of the cruise ship money into other areas,

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by madog222

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

And that will not happen as there is an end date on the causeway running through the park.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/lions-gate-bridge-close-vehicle-traffic-2030-government-agreement

[Tvisforme]

Every so often, someone posts in a SkyscraperPage forum about the Lions Gate Bridge "closing in 2030". (I'm skimming through a 2019 thread right now.) We go back and forth about it, someone mentions the Daily Hive article, then someone else links to the Vancouver Sun article where the Parks Board says it was in a term sheet signed by the various parties, not the final contract. Jordan Bateman's role in the matter surfaces, the lack of any concrete plans for a third crossing is discussed, quotes from transportation ministers refute the idea, and eventually it is tucked away for another year or so.

Could we maybe skip to the last part?

[FarmerHaight]

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.

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.

I do like the idea of matching the number of lanes on the bridge and causeway to the number of lanes currently attempting to merge onto them. However, the ultimate issue is you will just create another bottleneck. Currently the traffic at times moves slow even after the merges on the north and south end of the bridge and causeway. That indicates to me that if you constantly feed three lanes of traffic onto Georgia in the morning, or Marine/Upper Levels /Taylor/Capilano in the afternoon, those streets will not be able to handle the additional traffic. So for southbound traffic, you'll just be left with cars backing up from Denman or Cardero all the way onto the bridge and back into North Van.

If we need to get more people across First Narrows faster, I would hope a rapid transit connection would be considered before an expansion of the road network because you'll just end up playing whack-a-mole with all the new bottlenecks that pop up.

Originally Posted by fredinno

If Lions' Gate is a problem for Cruise Ships now, it'll be a problem for cargo ships in 10 years.

The question isn't whether the LGB is too low for any cargo or cruise ships around the world, but rather if the height of the bridge blocks so many ships that the cargo or cruise terminals cannot operate at capacity. I mean, if our cruise terminal has no more capacity for ships, why would we worry about raising the bridge for larger ships we don't have capacity for? My other question is whether Vancouver's cruise and cargo facilities can handle mega ships. If not, not only will millions (billions?) need to be spent to raise or replace the bridge, but additional capital will need to be sunk into upgrading the terminals. And all those expenses may or may not be worth it depending on the marginal benefits of handling larger ships.

Obviously we need to balance current and future needs. If all ships are someday going to be too tall for the Lionsgate, we will need to raise or replace the bridge. Or if all those ships that have to wait for low tide suddenly decide to skip Vancouver altogether, something will need to be done. But it's not Vancouver's loss if a cruise ship has to arrive or depart a couple hours earlier or later than what would be optimal if the bridge's height wasn't a concern.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Every so often, someone posts in a SkyscraperPage forum about the Lions Gate Bridge "closing in 2030". (I'm skimming through a 2019 thread right now.) We go back and forth about it, someone mentions the Daily Hive article, then someone else links to the Vancouver Sun article where the Parks Board says it was in a term sheet signed by the various parties, not the final contract. Jordan Bateman's role in the matter surfaces, the lack of any concrete plans for a third crossing is discussed, quotes from transportation ministers refute the idea, and eventually it is tucked away for another year or so.

Could we maybe skip to the last part?

I use to work for one of the contractors involved in the half life upgrade of the causeway and bridge. During construction decisions were made based on an end date for both. If and when is another story but it will come up again soon. In 2 years we will have a huge election and would not be surprised that it will come out and federal money will help pay for replacement. I forget now what firm did the tunnel design that I believe entered at clark to Capilano

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

I use to work for one of the contractors involved in the half life upgrade of the causeway and bridge. During construction decisions were made based on an end date for both. If and when is another story but it will come up again soon. In 2 years we will have a huge election and would not be surprised that it will come out and federal money will help pay for replacement. I forget now what firm did the tunnel design that I believe entered at clark to Capilano

Certainly, there will come a day when the replacement of the Lions Gate Bridge becomes a reality rather than a concept. What I was referring to was the repeated resurfacing of the "Parks Board 2030 closure" as if it were an absolute.

[casper]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

The question isn't whether the LGB is too low for any cargo or cruise ships around the world, but rather if the height of the bridge blocks so many ships that the cargo or cruise terminals cannot operate at capacity. I mean, if our cruise terminal has no more capacity for ships, why would we worry about raising the bridge for larger ships we don't have capacity for? My other question is whether Vancouver's cruise and cargo facilities can handle mega ships. If not, not only will millions (billions?) need to be spent to raise or replace the bridge, but additional capital will need to be sunk into upgrading the terminals. And all those expenses may or may not be worth it depending on the marginal benefits of handling larger ships.

The premium and specialty cruise ships are not that big. They are always going to be able to get under the current bridge. There will always be a place for Canada Place.

The mega ships targeting a mass cruise market are getting bigger and bigger. A number of them can't get into Vancouver. They stop in Victoria and turn around in Seattle. Vancouver needs to look a building a new terminal for these types of ships. Perhaps in Richmond or Tanasan.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Seeing as Victoria wants to limit the amount of said mega ships per season, there’s a possibility that we’re better off without them altogether.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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

We went to Whitehorse in March to watch the aurora, and one day we were there we drove down to Skagway. It's deader than a doornail in the winter, but you can see that it's basically just a big tourist trap. I will say, though, that the drive between Carcross and Skagway over the White Pass was spectacular - the White Pass and Yukon Railway excursion would be well worth the trip IMHO.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Seeing as Victoria wants to limit the amount of said mega ships per season, there’s a possibility that we’re better off without them altogether.

The cruise ship port in Nanaimo is under used. That is still an option that we should be encouraging. Especially given how much tax payers paid to build that white elephant.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by casper

The cruise ship port in Nanaimo is under used. That is still an option that we should be encouraging. Especially given how much tax payers paid to build that white elephant.

As someone who visits and/or passes through Nanaimo several times a year, including a fair bit of time spent wandering downtown, I'm embarrassed to admit that I had no idea there has been a cruise ship port for twelve years.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by casper

The cruise ship port in Nanaimo is under used. That is still an option that we should be encouraging. Especially given how much tax payers paid to build that white elephant.

Who wants to get off at Nanaimo?

There's not even an international airport there.

Who came up with that idea?

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I do like the idea of matching the number of lanes on the bridge and causeway to the number of lanes currently attempting to merge onto them. However, the ultimate issue is you will just create another bottleneck. Currently the traffic at times moves slow even after the merges on the north and south end of the bridge and causeway. That indicates to me that if you constantly feed three lanes of traffic onto Georgia in the morning, or Marine/Upper Levels /Taylor/Capilano in the afternoon, those streets will not be able to handle the additional traffic. So for southbound traffic, you'll just be left with cars backing up from Denman or Cardero all the way onto the bridge and back into North Van.

If we need to get more people across First Narrows faster, I would hope a rapid transit connection would be considered before an expansion of the road network because you'll just end up playing whack-a-mole with all the new bottlenecks that pop up.

The best thing you could do for congestion on that end right now is to build a direct connection from Lions' Gate to Upper Levels across Klahnie Park to get people on and off the bridge quickly.


And people keep pooh-poohing Norgate...
Phibbs doesn't help the LGB traffic.

The question isn't whether the LGB is too low for any cargo or cruise ships around the world, but rather if the height of the bridge blocks so many ships that the cargo or cruise terminals cannot operate at capacity. I mean, if our cruise terminal has no more capacity for ships, why would we worry about raising the bridge for larger ships we don't have capacity for? My other question is whether Vancouver's cruise and cargo facilities can handle mega ships. If not, not only will millions (billions?) need to be spent to raise or replace the bridge, but additional capital will need to be sunk into upgrading the terminals. And all those expenses may or may not be worth it depending on the marginal benefits of handling larger ships.

Obviously we need to balance current and future needs. If all ships are someday going to be too tall for the Lionsgate, we will need to raise or replace the bridge. Or if all those ships that have to wait for low tide suddenly decide to skip Vancouver altogether, something will need to be done. But it's not Vancouver's loss if a cruise ship has to arrive or depart a couple hours earlier or later than what would be optimal if the bridge's height wasn't a concern.

https://www.dpworldcanada.com/news_posts...o-ship-and-install-enormous-quay-cranes/
https://www.seaspan.com/seaspan-shipyards/who-we-are/
https://bcmarineterminals.com/g3-terminal/

The big ports in Vancouver Harbour are all designed for docking with post-Panamax vessels.


That's useless if the LGB doesn't allow fully-loaded post-Panamax vessels through.

The Port's not worried as much because it's less of an issue right now (especially since doing so would undermine part of the reason for the Deltaport expansion), but still.

This is going to become more and more of a problem unless we plan on moving all large port facilities to the South Arm of the Fraser and Roberts Bank.


Building a new terminal in Richmond or Delta for cruise ships, or blocking the passage of larger cruise ships is putting a band-aid on a terminal infection.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

As someone who visits and/or passes through Nanaimo several times a year, including a fair bit of time spent wandering downtown, I'm embarrassed to admit that I had no idea there has been a cruise ship port for twelve years.

It's in the middle of the industrial port facilities in an industrial dead zone.


Industrial strata fees are rising all the time on the mainland and they can't fill the empty industrial spaces on Vancouver Island...

[casper]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

As someone who visits and/or passes through Nanaimo several times a year, including a fair bit of time spent wandering downtown, I'm embarrassed to admit that I had no idea there has been a cruise ship port for twelve years.

It was used a little bit by NCL the first few years it opened. It is a white elephant.

I think they moved Helijet's terminal into that building.

A lot of money was spent building the special cruise ship peir and the two story building.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Who wants to get off at Nanaimo?

There's not even an international airport there.

Who came up with that idea?

I stopped there once on a costal cruise. It is a tourist stop nota turn around port. Part of a week long cruise to Alaska or a costal cruise.

I will have you know two-three years after it opened I did a pacific coastal cruise with NCL from LA to Vancouver that included a stop in Nanaimo. I will still living in Saskatchewan at the time.

The others stops on the cruise were San Francisco, Astoria Oregon and Victoria. Most people I talked to on the ship knew nothing of Nanaimo. It was the mystery stop on the cruise. There was one older lady that I meet who was super excited about the Nanaimo stop. She had done the previous year and it was her chance to stock up at Dollarama. Apparently Dollarama beats all the dollar stores in the US.

Nanaimo went all out for the cruise ship. They held an outdoor public market around the Bastion. There were cannon firings. The shops downtown had sidewalk sales.

It was weird.

Originally Posted by fredinno

It's in the middle of the industrial port facilities in an industrial dead zone.


Industrial strata fees are rising all the time on the mainland and they can't fill the empty industrial spaces on Vancouver Island...

You can see it on satellite view on google maps. They would run shuttle busses to get passengers off the ship, through the cargo area and into downtown Nanaimo. It is a nice and expensive looking building. You can see the special pier that goes out into the harbour with the dolphins to tie up the cruise ships.

[madog222]

The new Vancouver-Nanaimo passenger ferry will be using that berth I believe.