|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 26, 2009 7:44:46 GMT -8
I was just talking with a friend, and he and I were discussingone more rumour that we've heard: A potential future ferry terminal located on Sea Island (YVR), which would have routes to Swartz, Duke, and oddly, Langdale, and even more oddly, Port Hardy :\
Again, not likely, but if it were built, it'd be quite handy!
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Jun 26, 2009 9:10:01 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure I've heard this before on this very forum...
It's a good idea, however like all rumours, it should be taken with a grain of salt. I could see this as a passenger only service for quick access to the Island and Sunshine Coast from the airport, but it is pretty out of the way for vehicle ferry service.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 26, 2009 9:15:30 GMT -8
I could see this as a passenger only service for quick access to the Island and Sunshine Coast from the airport, but it is pretty out of the way for vehicle ferry service. I agree about the passenger service thang... BUT It's not at all out of the way once the new canada line is complete, and it's right beside the Airport, so it would reduce road congestion near the other ferry terminals if ppeople are bound for YVR
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 27, 2009 7:58:40 GMT -8
I've heard rumours of two intermediate vessels for the rupert to Charlotte's route. They would be there full time, so both the norad and the norex could service the inside passage during the summer. I have no idea if any of this is true, and i have no reliable sources, but i have heard rumours..... i think they were going to be called something like 'Northern Excursion', and 'Northern Explorer' A few questions for you, about posting rumours: 1) Who was your source? Someone who works for the ferries? Someone online? Or a friend who is making things up? - seriously, when you say "I have heard rumours", you need to be a bit more specific, so that us readers can determine how much credence to place in your post (to ignore your post, or to take it seriously and to question it and discuss it). 2) Are you aware of the Ford trend in your rumour that you posted. Explorer, Expedition and Excursion were 3 progressively larger SUV's built by Ford in the mid 1990's. Since those were the names that you cited, I'm wondering if you've fallen for someone's silly joke. I dismissed your post as rubbish, because of the above 2 points: - no indication of whether your rumour-source was a ferry-insider or a playground-buddy. - the obvious Ford joke If you were serious, tell us more about the source and what the source said. Without context, a post like that isn't going to lead to productive discussion.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 29, 2009 9:09:18 GMT -8
A few questions for you, about posting rumours: 1) Who was your source? Someone who works for the ferries? Someone online? Or a friend who is making things up? - seriously, when you say "I have heard rumours", you need to be a bit more specific, so that us readers can determine how much credence to place in your post (to ignore your post, or to take it seriously and to question it and discuss it). 2) Are you aware of the Ford trend in your rumour that you posted. Explorer, Expedition and Excursion were 3 progressively larger SUV's built by Ford in the mid 1990's. Since those were the names that you cited, I'm wondering if you've fallen for someone's silly joke. I dismissed your post as rubbish, because of the above 2 points: - no indication of whether your rumour-source was a ferry-insider or a playground-buddy. - the obvious Ford joke 1)My source was an old friend of mine who's uncle worked with BCF for awhile... 2)LOL! I never really even noticed the ford thing 'till now! oh, yess, and P_Keenlyside: If they were to build this, they would probably need to fill in a portion of the fraser river (a mighty feat in itself!) There is a very small island just south of the west tip of Sea island in the middle of the fraser, and they would probably fill it in to there, letting the river flow on the south side of the island. That's just my opinion of placement though.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jun 30, 2009 10:10:06 GMT -8
I was just talking with a friend, and he and I were discussingone more rumour that we've heard: A potential future ferry terminal located on Sea Island (YVR), which would have routes to Swartz, Duke, and oddly, Langdale, and even more oddly, Port Hardy :\ Again, not likely, but if it were built, it'd be quite handy! Sans Duke Point an idea like this, which I have a feeling may be the source of a confused story, did very seriously exist in 1972-1974. The plan was to build this new mainland terminal and replace services to Nanaimo from Horseshoe Bay. Tsawwassen, presumably would be unaffected and services to Langdale and Snug Cove would continue from West Vancouver. Plans for this were quite serious, you can find some very in depth planning documents at University libraries, and also some are easily available to the public in the Vancouver Public Library. From the new mainland terminal another new terminal would have been serviced on Gabriola Island, including a bridge to the Nanaimo area. Northern services were also operating out of the South at that time, so moving to the new terminal, although not explicitly mentioned, would have made sense. Ideas like this have reappeared on and off for many years, although the issue has been quite for about 12 years now. Opening Duke Point seemed to put any terminal ideas on hold for the time being. I think it's a safe assumption to say we won't see any new terminals on the South Coast for quite some time, if not dare I say, ever? Opposition to the proposed route Vancouver-Gabriola route came from many fronts. Horseshoe Bay, a tradition anti-BCF force, had businesses band together and demand that services to Nanaimo continue. Obviously they depended on the busy service and at that time Route 3 was not nearly as busy as it now. Gabriola residents did not want a bridge to Nanaimo. Lastly, there were many environmental concerns about placing a terminal in any of the proposed locations, including and most notably Sea Island. There is a lasting effect of the serious panning from the early 1970's, and that's the Queens of Cowichan and Coquitlam. When they went out for design tender BC Ferries called for a vessel suitable for a commuter crossing of 40 minutes. As such meal services would be minimal and only a cafeteria and snack bar were laid on. When the designs were approved for build, after nearly being totally lost because of a fire, the 40 minute crossing still seemed like it would be a reality. When the keel's hit the water though, it was pretty much a dead project and the new vessels would find there way to more traditional service on Routes 1, 2, and eventually 3 & 30. Desire for greater visibility when berthing, and a demand for more passenger space lead to the expanded passenger lounge areas of the Queens of Oak Bay and Surrey.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jun 30, 2009 19:42:46 GMT -8
Continuing on with what Dane is saying above, I do recall serious discussion on this 'short' crossing to Vancouver Island. The terminals were planned to be located on Iona Island on the mainland side, and at Sear Island just off the SE coast of Gabriola. Dave Barrett and the NDP were in power at the time. I understood that this route would cut sailing times in half.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Jun 30, 2009 20:23:22 GMT -8
As far as new medium & small vessel construction goes, could the Esquimalt ship yard handle that size of new build?
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 3, 2009 23:02:28 GMT -8
is it true that that big long causeway off the north side was originally for scouting out the area for this proposed terminal?
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Jul 4, 2009 9:55:20 GMT -8
No, that is called a spit, it can be a naturally occurring formation or can be man made. I do not know if this one is natural or not, but a good reason to make one is that it causes the river chanel to be forced into a quite narrow path, witch then naturally causes the river to dig itself a deeper chanel so that ships can get in and out year round without having to dredge a Chanel all the time. If it is natural it is very convenient for the above reason.
Cheers,
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jul 4, 2009 10:49:32 GMT -8
No, that is called a spit, it can be a naturally occurring formation or can be man made. I do not know if this one is natural or not, but a good reason to make one is that it causes the river chanel to be forced into a quite narrow path, witch then naturally causes the river to dig itself a deeper chanel so that ships can get in and out year round without having to dredge a Chanel all the time. If it is natural it is very convenient for the above reason. Cheers, It's actual label is the North Arm Jetty, jetty here being another descriptive term like spit which can mean something either natural or man-made projecting out into the see, although more often man-made when called a jetty. I also just happened to find an interesting link somewhat discussing your proposed ferry terminal. Actually, I think the article is arguing against the terminal in favour of the Iona Island park, which may or may not already have been created at this point in time. Interestingly, there are maps which show both the Gabriola and mainland terminals, not at Sea Island, but at Iona Island, at the end of the jetty on another artificially created island like Tsawwassen (boy somebody was ambitious) even with it's own rapid transit line to the terminal (somebody was really dreaming on this one). www.cowierowhouse.ca/Vancouver-Hot-Spots/1000_hectare_conservation_park_off_Iona_Island.htmlThis second one, looks at the possibility of a fixed link (that means a bridge) to the Island, along with several different possible ferry routes, again using Iona Island as a terminal. This is actually the insight of a city/urban planner/former MLA (perhaps someone has heard of him before) so, as usual, it's just another opinion. www.cowierowhouse.ca/Vancouver-Hot-Spots/vancouverIslandBridge-Link.htmlMap of proposed different crossings of Georgia Strait. www.cowierowhouse.ca/Vancouver-Hot-Spots/fixLink-5.gif
|
|
|
Post by fredmc on Feb 6, 2011 21:16:27 GMT -8
Some times the best way forward is to take a look back. The attached file does a bit of both. The attached is an attempt to revive the discussion of the "Short Link" route that first surfaced over 20 years ago. With all of the current talk of a need to increase fares and how expensive the system is to operate The Short Link Route was a way to hugely increase efficiencies, eliminate some short route subsidies, and make the fleet of large ferries much more efficient. It is doubtful that the political will to take the bold steps this requires exists but it certainly deserves being brought forward. Fred McCreath Attachments:filename (38 KB)
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 6, 2011 21:35:04 GMT -8
Here's a copy of the Word file that Fred attached. I was surprised that it's only 3 pages long, so easy to fit into a post directly.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Feb 6, 2011 21:35:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 6, 2011 21:39:04 GMT -8
1960, June 15: B.C. Ferry Corporation ran its first ferry from Departure Bay to Horseshoe Bay, after taking over the fleet from Black Ball Ferries This quote is one of Jan Peterson's many errors in her books (most of her errors are just sloppy typos and mistakes in spellings of place-names and mistakes in date-sequences, but some are factual errors such as this one). June 15th 1960 was the start of BC Ferries, but only on the Swartz Bay - Tsawwassen route. It wouldn't be until sometime in 1961 that BC Ferries bought-out Black Ball's routes and ships, which included the Departure Bay - Horseshoe Bay route.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 6, 2011 22:51:07 GMT -8
As far as I can tell, Departure Bay - Horseshoe Bay is a profitable run for BC Ferries, so there aren't any savings by eliminating that route.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 6, 2011 23:20:50 GMT -8
This idea deserves a little more attention than does a bridge right across Georgia Strait. Since most of the direct Mainland - Island routes make money, the only fare increases should be for increased cost of operations and fleet upgrades. But the fares are probably always going to go up, and if we want substantially lower fares to get to and from the Island, one way to achieve it would be to shorten the route. But I still have a few problems with this idea.
1. Building two new terminals and a long bridge to Gabriola seems like a lot of money to spend to replace a route that makes money and a route that probably has the potential to be profitable. The Gabriola run might even have the potential to run profitably if it went to Duke Point.
2. Dumping loads of traffic on the north west side of Richmond would require some very significant infrastructure upgrades. What highways are you going to connect to? I think you would have to include a new Oak Street Bridge, a new tunnel, and widened highway 99, and some kind of direct route to the Trans Canada. If you include the cost of that, is it still worth it?
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Feb 7, 2011 0:24:38 GMT -8
Another way to shorten the route to VI would be to build bridges to link Galiano to the Saanictch Peninsula (near SWB) via Saltspring. The current TSA-SWB route could then be cut from SWB to end at a new terminal on the east side of Galiano. Distance between terminals would be about 10nm--trip time perhaps 45 minutes. This would probably be easier than upgrading the YVR area to cope with ferry terminal traffic.
Yet another option would be to connect Gibsons and HSB by bridges via Bowen and Keats. This would give road access to the Sunshine Coast and would allow Nanaimo to be served from a new terminal in the Davis Bay area. Terminal distance would be about 17nm for a trip time of a little under an hour.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Feb 7, 2011 1:01:59 GMT -8
I see how in some ways this is an effective idea, but at the same time it's a bit unfeasible.
I don't see Route 2 being eliminated because of this, maybe it would divert some traffic though. I also don't see the need for a Terminal at YVR when Tsawwassen is not far away.
I see the Pros: -Eliminate Route 19 as a vehicle route. (Passenger-Only route similar to Newcastle/Protection could open) -Cut the crossing time of Route 30 in half (It makes more sense to run through Tsawwassen) -Make the Mid-Island Route more Cost Effective -New route for laid off Route 19 Employees -Less need for a third Route 30 vessel since the route is shorter -Possible to extend highway from the Valdes Terminal to Galiano Island
But also Cons: -Valdes Island is too Remote -Cost of Bridges, Highways, Terminals, Etc. -More Distance to Travel to get to terminal (potential loss of Route 30 customers) -Lays off Route 30 Employees or adds extra travel time for them. -Shuts down Duke Point as a Major Terminal (Only 15 years after being built) -Elimination of Route 19 (Which also eliminates a prime ferry spotting site for us)
There's plenty of reason to do it, but it's also a big gamble. If somebody proposed it now, I have no doubt it would lead nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 7, 2011 7:16:42 GMT -8
As far as I can tell, Departure Bay - Horseshoe Bay is a profitable run for BC Ferries, so there aren't any savings by eliminating that route. Since the current Route 2 & 30 are both currently profitable, the point of replacing them with the new short-link would be to make the new route "even more profitable". But with these mainline routes on zero-subsidy now, and with the ferry-company not being allowed to have the main routes subsidize the minor routes, there is no need to change this route to boost its profit.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Feb 7, 2011 7:18:43 GMT -8
Would docking large ferries at the mouth of the river be problematic with the combination of the tidal action river flows and silt deposits?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 7, 2011 20:20:40 GMT -8
Bill Good had Dr. Pat McGeer on his show today talking about a bridge to the Island. One thing he said was that a bridge would last 200-300 years. Does anyone know of any bridge that has lasted that long? I know there are some short old stone bridges in Europe, but is it reasonable to expect a bridge that long and over that kind of open water to last even 100 years?
For anyone that's interested, it was announced that David Hahn is going to be on Bill Good's show on CKNW tomorrow morning.
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Feb 7, 2011 21:09:10 GMT -8
I don't think there's enough engineering experience with 20km+ ocean bridges to draw many conclusions about the probable useful life of a bridge. There aren't many very long over ocean bridges in the first place, and most of them are both Chinese (meaning that construction quality could be problematic) and very new.
The most comparable Canadian example is, of course, the Confederation Bridge. CB has a design life of 100 years, however, it is about half the length of a fixed link to VI and is built in much shallower water of only ~10-20m depth.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Feb 7, 2011 21:32:39 GMT -8
I don't think there's enough engineering experience with 20km+ ocean bridges to draw many conclusions about the probable useful life of a bridge. There aren't many very long over ocean bridges in the first place, and most of them are both Chinese (meaning that construction quality could be problematic) and very new. The most comparable Canadian example is, of course, the Confederation Bridge. CB has a design life of 100 years, however, it is about half the length of a fixed link to VI and is built in much shallower water of only ~10-20m depth. Just pointing out... even though it is in much shallower water, the Confederation Bridge also has to contend with copious quantities of ice, something that the West Coast doesn't even dream about.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Feb 7, 2011 21:47:26 GMT -8
|
|