|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 28, 2008 16:03:11 GMT -8
The bridge idea is not new. Several studies have actualy been done on the ideas of bridge, tunnel,floating bridge etc. These are posted on a government site but I forget where it is now. www.th.gov.bc.ca/Publications/reports_and_studies/fixed_link/fixed_link.htm You would have to go as far north as Campbell river to find a possible site. Forget the Straight of Georgia the sediment is a half mile deep. there is no solid bottom. A floating bridge would not last long before it was taken out by a freighter, cruise ship or storm. A tunnel has the same problems as a bridge, no solid land. A floating tunnel was suggested but again it would be subject to strong tides and storms. I cannot see anyone seriously suggesting that anyone going from Victoria to Vancouver would want to drive to Campbell river, pay an estimated $205.00 toll to crawl over a bridge then try to get down to Vancouver either over more bridges or on ferries. The estimated cost of a bridge is about one billion dollars. How about through the San Juans, since the islands are spaced closer together, so the maximum depth between them isn't bound to be as deep? Yeah, I know it's going through another country, and it's too far out of the way for direct Vancouver-Victoria passenger travel, but I figure it may be good for freight. Besides, I do hope whatever fixed link they build to VI is strictly a rail connection anyways.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Jun 28, 2008 17:16:20 GMT -8
Aarrgghh! I'd be willing to chip in for a hefty reward for finding the 'silver bullet' to put this nonsense to sleep, once and for all. A hundred and something years of talk is enough.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Jun 28, 2008 21:05:19 GMT -8
Clearly Vancouver Islanders—and quite a few Mainlanders—emphatically abhor the idea of a fixed bridge spanning the Strait. We like things the way they are right now, period. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 28, 2008 21:09:19 GMT -8
"Over a 50-year period of time, it's conceivable a toll bridge would be a lot cheaper," said Hahn, noting he realized the political sensitivities such a suggestion is sure to inflame. "We're not promoting the bridge. We're not advocating one thing or another," he quickly added. We should give them a choice. Let us build a ferry terminal for Routes 2 and 30 on Gabriola Island, and the bridge crossing shall be free. If not, then they should charge to cross the bridge. If they won't allow the bridge to be built in the first place, then hike up ferry fares to their island.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 28, 2008 21:12:02 GMT -8
Clearly Vancouver Islanders—and quite a few Mainlanders—emphatically abhor the idea of a fixed bridge spanning the Strait. We like things the way they are right now, period. End of story. How about a rail tunnel, a la Seikan and Chunnel? Hard to complain about improving the means to deliver goods if you're a recepient of said goods. The cost of building it is another matter though.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Jun 28, 2008 23:03:46 GMT -8
Clearly Vancouver Islanders—and quite a few Mainlanders—emphatically abhor the idea of a fixed bridge spanning the Strait. We like things the way they are right now, period. End of story. How about a rail tunnel, a la Seikan and Chunnel? If you read www.th.gov.bc.ca/Publications/reports_and_studies/fixed_link/fixed_link.htm again, you'll see that the Government already rejected that idea as unfeasible.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jun 29, 2008 7:42:18 GMT -8
The Chunnel carries a lot of cars, cargo and passengers. I would guess, and don't have the time at the moment to look it up, that the Chunnel carries much more volume than would be practical for the Island. A huge amount of produce and products go between the two countries by a whole variety of means. I don't think that volume exists between the Island and mainland. Look at the volume of air connections, ferries, hovercrafts, chunnel etc. etc. and you get an idea of the amount of money involved and then a chunnel makes sense.
A friend from the middle east, who is working on a doctorate in England, was just visiting me. He was surprized that the Canadian government wasn't doing a better job of transit. He chuckled about the furor here about the price of gas. And basically said try paying what they pay in England. Gas in Abu Dhabi is $2 a gallon. In neighbouring Dubai it is $4 a gallon. He said the difference was greed and whether the petroleum industry was privitized or public.
He said two things. Firstly, invest in better transit - the subway in Toronto is highly thought of but has poor penetration of the city compared to London. He also said you want to drive everywhere in big cars. Europe has many more fuel efficient and smaller cars. Good for his country - bad for the environment. Secondly, end speculation on petroleum.
With cheap cars about to flood India and the booming new automobile market in China will drive demand through the roof. We all wanted communism to end in China, it is very slow coming and gradual, but welcome to the future when Chinese adopt more and more western patterns of consumption.
This was all coming from an Arab who's doctoral thesis is on "Global Warming." Talk about a stereotype bender.
My only real comments back that to him relates to the idea of a bridge/tunnel/chunnel to the Island. Firstly, with the exception of a couple of large centres, Canada's population is very spread out and thin over a huge country. Secondly, Toronto for example even as a major centre, has a much smaller population spread out over a number of suburbs and cities.
The thin strip from Windsor to Montreal should be much more European style with more and faster trains. Easier connections between rail and the airports. And much more denser and easier transit. Maybe gas prices will start this ball rolling finally.
Is spending billions at this stage for a bridge/chunnel/tunnel where we should be spending money, or should we be spending that money to make it easier to get people off the road and into more efficient and better for the environment transit? I know where my opinion lies more and more these days.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 29, 2008 9:57:11 GMT -8
Is spending billions at this stage for a bridge/chunnel/tunnel where we should be spending money, or should we be spending that money to make it easier to get people off the road and into more efficient and better for the environment transit? I know where my opinion lies more and more these days. Hence it should be a rail connection. Not now, but maybe when the Island's population reaches 2 million, it could be given serious consideration.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Jun 29, 2008 22:22:11 GMT -8
Is spending billions at this stage for a bridge/chunnel/tunnel where we should be spending money, or should we be spending that money to make it easier to get people off the road and into more efficient and better for the environment transit? I know where my opinion lies more and more these days. Hence it should be a rail connection. Not now, but maybe when the Island's population reaches 2 million, it could be given serious consideration. Great Britain has a population of about 59 million and an economy somewhat larger than that of Vancouver Island. The tunnel across the English Channel did not make economic sense until recently. A tunnel to Vancouver Island similar to the "Chunnel" will make sense about the time that Vancouver Island has a similar population and economy to Great Britain. I hope never to see that happen.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Jun 29, 2008 23:04:31 GMT -8
Eurotunnel recently concluded a debt for equity deal to keep it operating. As recently as two years ago, it had been in bankruptcy protection. It's debt is in the billions. It has been a financial sinkhole since it opened, and still has not managed to put the cross channel ferries out of business. And that's with a U.K. population in excess of sixty million, with hundreds of millions on the European side.
Obviously, any talk of a tunnel here is beyond clueless.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 29, 2008 23:35:16 GMT -8
Hokkaido has a population of about 5 million, and its tunnel (Seikan) is deeper and longer than the Chunnel.
White elephant perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Touy on Jun 30, 2008 17:33:11 GMT -8
Tsugaru Strait is about 20 km across with maximum depths about the same as the Georgia Strait. ------------------------------------- From Wikipedia The Seikan Tunnel (青函トンネル Seikan Tonneru or 青函隧道 Seikan Zuidō) is a 53.85 km (33.49 mile) railway tunnel in Japan, with a 23.3 km (14.5 mile) portion under the seabed. It is the longest undersea tunnel in the world. It travels beneath the Tsugaru Strait — connecting Aomori Prefecture on the Japanese island of Honshū and the island of Hokkaidō — as part of the Kaikyo Line of Hokkaido Railway Company. Although it is the longest traffic (railway or road) tunnel in the world, faster and cheaper air travel has left the Seikan Tunnel comparatively underused.
Will those stats on tunnels it is possible to build a tunnel of the length but with an island with a suitable population and demand.
As for Vancouver island at the moment it is not economically feasible to build a tunnel or a bridge but maybe in 35-45 years and when vancouver island population reaches lets say 2.6 million + there will be people asking for one but for now bc ferries can handle the current demand.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 1, 2008 14:15:56 GMT -8
Even without that big a population, VI's location and port potential could be motivation to build a fixed rail link to it, couldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jul 1, 2008 17:17:24 GMT -8
But why? It's much cheaper and easier to just haul cargo containers on freighters to various ports across the Island. Besides, which railway operator would want to be the one who pays for the bridge....
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Jul 1, 2008 17:25:09 GMT -8
Please read the reports. For a tunnel to Vancouver Island you would have to start out by Hope and dig deeper than any other tunnel and come out somewhere by Port Renfrew. Does that make sense? A bridge would have to be up by Campbell river, does that make sense? Either project would cost billions and would be very expensive to maintain. Simply give the ferry system the same subsidy the bus service in Vancouver gets or the same subsidy the rapid transit gets. That is way cheaper and would allow reasonable costs.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 1, 2008 17:52:21 GMT -8
But why? It's much cheaper and easier to just haul cargo containers on freighters to various ports across the Island. Besides, which railway operator would want to be the one who pays for the bridge.... Actually, I meant cargo to/from Asia and the Pan-Pacific. Having direct rail connections to the northern and western sides of VI might reduce cross-Pacific sailing distance. If the water in the Strait of Georgia is too deep, then maybe through the Discovery or San Juan Islands.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Jul 1, 2008 18:02:31 GMT -8
How's 'bout a compromise...stick everything in a submarine, turn on the blinkers and run it at warp speed!
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 1, 2008 18:02:52 GMT -8
Prince Rupert is even closer to Asia and already has rail access. So VI would have to better it in some way. Since the major market they are going for is US traffic to Asia the midwest to Prince Rupert isn't that much farther.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 1, 2008 18:24:29 GMT -8
Prince Rupert is even closer to Asia and already has rail access. So VI would have to better it in some way. Closer proximity and better accessibility to Lower Mainland and US west coast markets?
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 1, 2008 18:45:43 GMT -8
The lower mainland is a relatively small market. The vast container port in Los Angeles more than covers the US west coast, supplemented by Seattle and to a lesser extent Portland. That is formidable competition.
Prince Rupert is the closest deepwater port to Asia so saves up to three days of sailing time. It is also quite congestion free.
The business the port is after is manufactured goods from the midwest (Chicago area) and Southern Ontario. And deliveries from Asia to the same areas. The rail link to Canada from this area is very good. To ship from Chicago into Prince Rupert doesn't add much time compared to Long Beach, CA. Long Beach is much farther because it is both further south adding sailing time and the train travels southwest, when the port they are being sent to is Northwest, adding to the sailing distance.
The backlog experienced two years ago which put a lot of shipments for Christmas in jeopardy showed how log jammed Long Beach can get.
So adding the costs of building a brand new facility somewhere on the Island, that would undoubtly face severe environmental objections, and would be extremely expensive given the tunnels to the west coast of the Island that would be necessary, not to mention crossing the Strait, and Prince Rupert looks very good. Railways have invested heavily in this route, I doubt they would have any reason to invest in another.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 1, 2008 19:48:04 GMT -8
Room for expansion is good, and only CN serves the Prince Rupert port. Somebody ought to give them some competition sooner or later. Port Hardy looks like a good midpoint for another port to fill the gap between Vancouver and PR. Anyways, the American ports are getting full, and they are looking north to BC for extra port capacity and reduced sailing distance, as seen here: www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=14841013-981b-4486-8a05-b4b91e1e32eeMaybe one of these days when shipping volume grows, it'll become feasible to build a connection to the Island and add new container ports there.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 2, 2008 7:02:53 GMT -8
CN owns a railway now in the Chicago area, so that really helps speed goods on their tracks. Since they take the northern route anyways through Edmonton and there is lots of capacity, it helps move a lot of goods quite easily. There were a lot of naysayers about the Port in Prince Rupert. If it expands it will add some much needed jobs to that area. Lets hope it does. There was an announcement of a potash terminal being built that is good news. The boom Saskatchewan is experiencing that is fueled in part by the current fertilizer market is driving the need for this capacity.
Unfortunately Vancouver has kind of shot itself in the foot. The backlogs they have had, the constant labour woes, slowdowns and routine longshoremen strikes has made shippers wary of Vancouver. A good efficient service that has a stable labour atmosphere is looking very attractive to manufacturers, especially in this day of "Just in Time Delivery." I was speaking to an acquaintance who is involved in manufacturing jewelry in China and imports it to Canada and the US. His major client is that unnamed big box American orginated store named after someone who recently passed away (trying to give BCinNJ a run for his verbosity). They have at times had to resort to shipping by air when they got concerned about delivery. They have a container that comes over every so often and since they don't warehouse a lot, gets really concerned when it looks like their product may be late. The penalties for not delivering their product on time is severe. He was talking about switching their shipper to one that used Prince Rupert. Mind you that is one container every month or so, but I am sure he is not alone.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Jul 2, 2008 7:26:29 GMT -8
(trying to give BCinNJ a run for his verbosity). Hey, I resemble that remark...
|
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Jul 2, 2008 21:07:46 GMT -8
On the topic of a bridge:
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 2, 2008 22:19:34 GMT -8
Have your cake and eat it?
Slam the door after you get in?
|
|