Question re. Route 30/Duke Point Terminal

[DENelson83]

With the discussion I've seen about how truckers will go back to route 2 if two Coastals are put on it, bringing the truck traffic right back through the centre of Nanaimo, and the notion that traffic on route 30 should be improved, why not solve both problems at the same time by building two new berths at Duke Point, then closing down the Departure Bay terminal, rerouting the Trans-Canada Highway to the Duke Point terminal, and putting route 2 between Duke Point and Horseshoe Bay?

[Scott]

A cheeky answer would be: Because they're currently in the middle of spending millions of dollars upgrading the terminal:) On the other hand, right now it's halfway dismantled, so they could leave it that way!

I really like Departure Bay. It's got everything going for it except the road connections. Being close to downtown is a good thing in my opinion. And you can't beat it for being a sheltered harbour. I think people north of Nanaimo would shout loudly if they were forced to drive the extra 15-20 minutes to Duke Point. From an urban planning standpoint, you would probably see the commercial district north along the old Island Highway die (not to mention downtown Nanaimo) if you forced traffic onto the inland highway.

The main concern should be to keep encouraging truck traffic through Duke Point AND Tsawwassen. Horseshoe Bay residents would cry just as loud as Departure Bay residents about those noisy stinky trucks driving past their million dollar mansions (half a million in Nanaimo). When the South Fraser Perimiter Road is completed, I think that will be a big incentive to go through Tsawwassen.

[Coastal Drought]

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! Then my group would have to drive through Vancouver in order to get to the Langdale ferry if they did that. (In order to get to the camp on the Sunshine Coast).

[DENelson83]

rover239 said:

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! Then my group would have to drive through Vancouver in order to get to the Langdale ferry if they did that. (In order to get to the camp on the Sunshine Coast).

You wouldn't have to drive through Vancouver if route 2 moved from Departure Bay to Duke Point. You'd still dock directly at Horseshoe Bay.

As for what John H wrote, I really like Departure Bay as well; it's actually my favourite terminal in the system. And yes, the road connections to Departure Bay aren't that good, but with that terminal smack dab in the middle of a community full of NIMBY's, don't expect the road approaches to improve any time soon. And if route 2 was moved to the Duke Point terminal, keeping truck traffic away from Horseshoe Bay is simple--just prohibit the big rigs from even using route 2.

[Coastal Drought]

Whoops. My bad. I had a brain fart there for a minute. lol

[ruddernut]

denelson83 said:

With the discussion I've seen about how truckers will go back to route 2 if two Coastals are put on it, bringing the truck traffic right back through the centre of Nanaimo, and the notion that traffic on route 30 should be improved, why not solve both problems at the same time by building two new berths at Duke Point, then closing down the Departure Bay terminal, rerouting the Trans-Canada Highway to the Duke Point terminal, and putting route 2 between Duke Point and Horseshoe Bay?

Will they really continue to go through the expense of driving through city traffic and taking a longer route once the novelty of the Coastals has passed?

[Hardy]

Re: trucks etc.
30 is preferred because travel time to Tsawwassen from most trucking terminals is the same as to HSB. Fares are the same on 30 as on 2 -- when the surcharge is not in effect -peak/summer (so it is not cost). Travel time on the route is 25 mins more, but are you saving that in travel time? For most TRUCKING terminals, the answer is YES, and as stated, once the SFPR is done, this will be a yes from just about anywhere not right on Hwy-1 west of Willingdon, or on the North Shore.

The other factor is the waits at HSB for 2 traffic AND ultimate destination once in Nanaimo. If the trucks are heading up island, then 30 offers better connections via the Island Hwy than 2 does. Duncan is a better bet from 30 than from 1 also, due to the snarl through Hwys 17/1.

As far as BANNING trucks from 2 -- never happen -- it is an extension of Hwy-1/TCH. They can up the fares to DISCOURAGE trucks, but they cannot ban them. If they would do that, then lets TRIPLE deck the ferries and load only cars.

[ferryking]

maybe a truck route from HSB to Duke Point...they could call it route 31...limited schedule...weekend rush etc...of course HSB would need even more lanes, etc....just a thought.

[Northern Exploration]

Thanks Hardy for your perspective.

Interesting idea ferryking. I would think if they removed the gallery decks permanently and made it advantageous for trucks to use they could do both a TSW to Sidney and a HSB to Duke service -especially if it was in off hours. Might be interesting to explore the oft talked about (at least here) overnight services especially to Duke that could take a few overload cars if necessary during peak times.

Wouldn't work for consumer shippers like movers maybe but many terminals here seem to work 24hrs. If you drive on the 401 in Ontario anywhere between Windsor and Montreal especially late at night all you see is trucks. The truck stops are full and you see them pulling into terminals at all hours. I actually have vowed not to drive to or from Montreal after 10pm due to the trucks. You get a couple trucks passing a whole string of trucks at 80km in sections of the highway that are only two lanes in each direction. The government has finally agreed to add a third lane in each direction in some more chunks and I definitely think they should do that on the inclines.

Certainly if BCFerries doesn't add something soon for the commercial side soon a competitor like Seaspan will certainly take a closer look at adding it. And with the growing population of the Island especially north of Nanaimo it will become a necessity.

[Nucksrule]

ferryking said:

maybe a truck route from HSB to Duke Point...they could call it route 31...limited schedule...weekend rush etc...of course HSB would need even more lanes, etc....just a thought.

there is an upside and a downside. as you mentioned hb would need more lanes and possibly another berth,(goodbye sewells)
but the traffic to the island during the day would be less.

[bpawlett]

it would seem like a waste to retire the departure bay terminal, after all the improvements and money theyve spent on it, the only
downside to the terminal is how small the overflow area is, traffic can get backed up quite a ways, who knows maybe down the road the duke point terminal will turn into a super terminal.
i really think they should have a nanaimo to sunshine coast ferry,
try it with one of the v's or something.

[Hardy]

bpawlett said:

I really think they should have a nanaimo to sunshine coast ferry,
try it with one of the v's or something.

I don't think that there is quite enough of a demand for that routing at this point -- however, I do think that this idea is worth studying for FUTURE route expansion. I would think that it would be a VERY limited schedule, maybe 2 round trips daily, or maybe not even round-trips but more like some funky tri-angle route 2 + 3 + new route. This would give Rte-3 the overflow vessel it needs, and add partial capacity to Rte-2 ...

Maybe something like AM departure out of DB to Langdale, Langdale to HSB, HSB to DB, DB to HSB, HSB to Langdale, Langdale to DB ??

Dunno, like I say, I don't currently think there is the demand for it right now ... but you never know what the future holds.

[Political Incorrectness]

With Departure Bay smack dab in the middle of the city, you get the challenge of the limited holding and parking. Why not add an upper deck holding lot plus make the parking lot a garage? If they are going to pour in millions to the terminal than top it off. At least make sure the terminal can hold 3 boats worth of cars. Although I do think it would be better to shift traffic outside of downtown and move it all to Duke Point. Yet one question has come to mind. Where do most of the people go to? Do they go to Comox? Or do they go to somewhere closer to Nanaimo?

[DENelson83]

ferrymaniac101 said:

With Departure Bay smack dab in the middle of the city, you get the challenge of the limited holding and parking. Why not add an upper deck holding lot plus make the parking lot a garage? If they are going to pour in millions to the terminal than top it off. At least make sure the terminal can hold 3 boats worth of cars.

Remember that berth 1 at DPB is only a single deck. If you want three boats worth of cars within the DPB compound, you'll need to double-deck berth 1 first.

[kylefossett]

denelson83 said:

ferrymaniac101 said:

With Departure Bay smack dab in the middle of the city, you get the challenge of the limited holding and parking. Why not add an upper deck holding lot plus make the parking lot a garage? If they are going to pour in millions to the terminal than top it off. At least make sure the terminal can hold 3 boats worth of cars.

Remember that berth 1 at DPB is only a single deck. If you want three boats worth of cars within the DPB compound, you'll need to double-deck berth 1 first.

why would you need to double ramp berth 1? the three boats worth of cars in the compund just gets them off the roads leading to the terminal quicker

[Hardy]

kylefossett said:

denelson83 said:

Remember that berth 1 at DPB is only a single deck. If you want three boats worth of cars within the DPB compound, you'll need to double-deck berth 1 first.

why would you need to double ramp berth 1? the three boats worth of cars in the compund just gets them off the roads leading to the terminal quicker

In air-traffic-controller terms, (and also mover terms) "Stack 'em, rack 'em and pack 'em!". I fully agree. A berth is not necessarily a limitation to holding capacity. You may need to tweak schedules (as they have done at HSB) to ensure an orderly traffic flow with departures versus arrivals and multiple routes (although the multi-route issue is not a DepBay issue, YET). You just would need to ensure that your comings and goings are at the appropriate time to best utilize the available berths, and also to not create a traffic snarl at any common traffic areas.

Barring sailing delays, breakdowns, bomb threats etc, this can be accomplished by a good sound feasible schedule.

The Coastals will also assist with this, as they have the HP to spare to "speed up" on their route and make up some lost loading time due to traffic conditions without totally throwing their fuel consumption out of whack. Remember that the C's can do the crossing faster than they currently do, but, just like in your car, the faster you go, your fuel consumption increases exponentially related to your speed. From the charts I have seen, the Coastals are not as bad as the C's in this respect. The V's are HORRIBLE, plus you can't shove those old gals to the red-line anymore without fear of breaking them permenantly!

[queenofcowichan]

Expand the Hell out of Duke Point?

Well Lets just see how desperated the residents of Nanaimo realy want Bc Ferries to move all opperations to Duke Point. First maybe BC ferries can do a Land swap with the city, now lets see maybe BC Ferries could Give the City of Nanaimo the land that Departure Bay sits on, which at first does not seem to bad. The Brechin Hill area residents will get thier peace and Quiet back, no more Ferry Traffic or line ups around the terminal.

In return BC Ferries will get the whole tip of Jack Point. Yes ALL of you NIMBY or Enviromentalst will be Crying untill the Pigs Fly because the Jack point park and its Forest are now the Property of BC Ferries and you know what this means? "CHAIN SAW TIME BABY!" HA HA HA! You did not even think to consider what the real consequences to your stupid complaining are. To expand Duke Point you will need to cut down all of the trees at the tip of Jack point because there is simply no room to the south of the terminal to expand and all of the traffic needs to be held somewhere before they board the vessle.

Oh boy I just love to hear stupid people make a stink. I can hear all of the protesters now because the Park will be distroyed, But hey we must remember Residents in a area where a ferry terminal has been for well over half a Century don't like the everyday opperations of the said termal-even though most of them have moved in since the terminal was built.

Just like the Complainers with the Flight path of the Vancouver airport. To complain about something that has been there long before you is Stoopid! IF you don't like it MOVE!

Keep the Ferry terminals where they are! Maybe we should move the residentual houses around the terminal and expand.

[Neil]

queen of cowichan:

I'm curious. If you were actually talking to someone from the Departure Bay area, and they were expressing concerns about the operations of the ferry terminal and the effect it had on the neighborhood, would you tell them that they were "stoopid", and that they should just shut up, or move?

'Nimby' seems more and more to be a term used by people who just know exactly what is good for someone else's neighborhood, and who have little patience for both sides of an issue that can affect people's quality of life. It's a lazy, dismissive term that we'd be better off without.

[Hardy]

May 16, 2008 22:46:10 GMT -8 Neil said:

'Nimby' seems more and more to be a term used by people who just know exactly what is good for someone else's neighborhood, and who have little patience for both sides of an issue that can affect people's quality of life. It's a lazy, dismissive term that we'd be better off without.

Like it or not, I think that we are quite stuck with the term NIMBY, and just like most other words, it is not the word (or in this case the abbreviation) itself, but rather the context that it is used in.

There are many projects and enhancements which are "for the greater good of the community" but there is also always a cost to someone - be it losing part of their property to expropriation, or the tranquility of their tiny little cul-de-sac as it gets upgraded to a feeder route.

As a matter of fact, a lot of the times, these expansion plans etc are already on the books as a design/study thing way before the residents move into the areas, and it is the residents themselves that are not doing their due diligence before purchasing/moving.

Other times, it is, as I say, necessary for the "good of the whole" for some people to be inconvenienced. It isn't always fair, and I don't claim it to be.

However, NIMBY-ism is a real thing and, if I were on the receiving end of something that was 'detrimental' to my property (even had the visage of it), I would probably take a NIMBY-istic approach.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, Neil, just the anti-NIMBY part...

[queenofcowichan]

NO of course not would I tell people they are stoopid or should move. But however I would ask them what there concerns are then I would ask them how long they have been living near the terminal.
Because I personally believe that if you Knowing buy a house near the Ferry terminal or close to a airport You have no right to complain about your surroundings. YOU TAKE THE FULL RISK OF FUTURE EXPANSION AND NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. You do have the choice where you want to live.

However If you have lived in the area long before the Ferry terminal was built or planned then you have a right to complain.

I am just p-d at listing to all the Complaints.

We had a situation at Qualicum Beach airport, about 3 kms from where I live. The airport has been there since the 1950's and suddenly residents in the surrounding NEW subdivisions decided to raise a stink about too much aircraft noise flying above thier houses. The airport is literaly across the Railway tracks from them and they figure they have a right to complain about the noice, Mainly Helicopters and Flight school training. The airport is small, only light aircraft and helicopters can land there and on occasion the Buffalo aircraft (Dash 8) Search and Rescue does land.

Okay, I can honestly understand your concerns, but Why did you not think about this when you purchased your home? It is your Responsibility to do some research before you buy.

IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM HAVE I MEANT TO DEMEAN OR INSULT ANYONE INCLUDING "NIMBY'S" So I wish to appolozige if anyone took it the wrong way.

[Political Incorrectness]

The one main reason I see about sending Departure Bay to Duke Point is for the reason of expansion. Is it really convenient to pay for 30 days a year for a couple full time positions to load traffic onto Stewart Avenue in Nanaimo versus getting vehicles into the holding lot? The problem I see with the Departure Bay expansion is that it is not really that much of an expansion since it has not added much car capacity except making the land they already have more efficient in its usage. If they really wanted to expand, they should have gone out into the water a bit more to add capacity to the holding lanes for 1k vehicles. (I did some estimations based off satellite images and it is theoretically possible). That way, Stewart Avenue never has to be backed up unless the time to take to process vehicles is taking time.

Duke Point has the very large potential for expansion, it is away from residencies to where there would not be an issue and the highway connections are very good since they are attached to the major artierials (sp?) on the Island. However, I would like Highway 19 to have a few more overpass connections before that is to happen. The major hurdle in this is transit connections. Departure Bay is a nice central location for transit connections, could it be possible to fit in a shuttle to Duke Point from another terminus to prevent major transit changes? Would the changes for Duke Point be more feasable in the long term than for Departure Bay?

I would have to agree it is time to say goodbye to the bay. In the next few years if traffic continues to climb, it will become Hong Kong's Kai Tech airport where it becomes too small for the heavy traffic.

[Neil]

Whether we're talking about people who live in proximity of prisons, airports, ferry terminals, industrial areas, or whatever... I don't think it's ever appropriate for authorities to say, "You knew what was here when you moved in, so you have to live with what ever we say you have to live with, and accept whatever expansion is made here."

Certainly, people should be aware of what they're moving next to, and complaints by local residents about the necessary operations of public or industrial facilities are sometimes unreasonable. But it's the duty of BC Ferries, YVR, and any other operator to try to work with the community to fit in with as little disruption as possible. That's just the way it has to be if we're going to maintain liveable communities. State planners in the old Soviet Union never had to worry about 'nimbys' or environmentalists getting in the way of their grand designs, but our political dialogue is a bit more complicated, thank goodness.

I agree, there has to be a balance between local concerns and the larger community. Departure Bay has been a ferry terminal for over fifty years, but it's also a residential area. Both sides have rights and valid concerns.

[ruddernut]

May 17, 2008 12:02:06 GMT -8 @queenofcowichan said:

However If you have lived in the area long before the Ferry terminal was built or planned then you have a right to complain.

BUT...if you ever use any infrastructure that was built in somebody else's neighbourhood, then you lose all right to complain.

[ruddernut]

May 17, 2008 13:15:31 GMT -8 Neil said:

Whether we're talking about people who live in proximity of prisons, airports, ferry terminals, industrial areas, or whatever... I don't think it's ever appropriate for authorities to say, "You knew what was here when you moved in, so you have to live with what ever we say you have to live with, and accept whatever expansion is made here."

Certainly, people should be aware of what they're moving next to, and complaints by local residents about the necessary operations of public or industrial facilities are sometimes unreasonable. But it's the duty of BC Ferries, YVR, and any other operator to try to work with the community to fit in with as little disruption as possible. That's just the way it has to be if we're going to maintain liveable communities. State planners in the old Soviet Union never had to worry about 'nimbys' or environmentalists getting in the way of their grand designs, but our political dialogue is a bit more complicated, thank goodness.

But unlike the old Soviet regime, the people of the greater community can pass their judgement on the authorities/officials for their decisions come election day.

[ruddernut]

May 17, 2008 12:02:06 GMT -8 @queenofcowichan said:

We had a situation at Qualicum Beach airport, about 3 kms from where I live. The airport has been there since the 1950's and suddenly residents in the surrounding NEW subdivisions decided to raise a stink about too much aircraft noise flying above thier houses. The airport is literaly across the Railway tracks from them and they figure they have a right to complain about the noice, Mainly Helicopters and Flight school training. The airport is small, only light aircraft and helicopters can land there and on occasion the Buffalo aircraft (Dash 8) Search and Rescue does land.

Isn't the average age in Qualicum 90 years old? Apparently, senior citizens are some of the worst of the NIMBY's, and they have all the free time in the world to show up at town hall meetings and raise a stink about the noise and anything else that gets on their nerves.

You'd think that having been around for a long time, they'd know a thing or two about what is necessary for society to progress and function. But noooooo, they're far more concerned about their own personal serenity and comfort before they finally kick it than what is best for the greater community at large.

Don't they complain about kids partying and making noise late into the night, when they did just the same to the music of Elvis and Buddy Holly back in the day?