Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal - photos & discussion

[Northern Exploration]

I stumbled on this on BC Ferries website. Maybe I missed the discussion about the open house held on July 5th. If so my bad and maybe a moderator can delete this.

www.bcferries.com/files/AboutBCF/terminalmasterplanning/Open_House_July_5_Boards.pdf

[Balfour]

I'm glad I read this document. I'm surprised to see that Horseshoe Bay gets more traffic than Tsawwassen, likely due to the Bowen Island run and growth on Bowen Island as well as the fact that some people who live in Gibsons and Sechelt commute to Vancouver via route 3. Horseshoe Bay serves way more commuters to Vancouver than Tsawwassen.

[Low Light Mike]

No need to delete...... ;D That is a great find. Thanks so much for posting this.

I enjoyed viewing this presentation. I knew nothing of Larsen Creek, and it's story is a bit concerning.

The comparison of Horseshoe Bay terminal to Tsawwassen terminal is an interesting one. Similar peak traffic, but HSB has only half the space....

Interesting to note that the new Coastal class ships won't increase capacity themselves, unless their arrival means that peak times will have 4-vessel service. But 1 ship still won't be enough to "clear the compound" as they say.

It was also interesting to read about the upcoming replacement of the Langdale-traffic upper holding area at the HSB terminal. That will no doubt be a big terminal-disruption to replace that.

[Political Incorrectness]

If they added the platforms to the Super Cs, they would be able to clear out the car compound but passengers may be left behind since they are only licensed for 1650.

[Ferry Rider 42]

I believe the authors of the report favor acquiring more land for the terminal. The constant theme seems to be the lack of space to hold vehicles. Obviously, everyone knows the terminal is too small; this has been the case for years. And finally, I believe BC ferries is eyeing an expansion.

Evidence of this theme can be seen on pages 4, 6, 9, and 10. Page 4 in particular is interesting because it even mentions the option of acquiring more land within the timeline. Quite frankly, I’m in favor of letting the terminal grow. Something approaching Tsawwassen’s size sounds perfectly reasonable given the current traffic, and the expected growth. How it’s done, doesn’t really bother me. Push over a mountain, pave over a marina, it’s all the same to me. But I think it’s in the best interest of both islanders and highway users to get an expansion done.

[Balfour]

A couple things I think could be done are an expanded upper deck designated for upper car deck traffic going on routes 2 and 3, and another single-ramped berth designated for the Bowen Island traffic next to berth one.

[Hardy]

There is only one thing standing in the way of any future expansion --- NIMBY.

Just as with most "public good" projects, it seems so cut and dried to those who are not immediately affected, but the residents nearby will all oppose it. Personally, I too am a "greater good" person, but the NIMBY's always seem to win.

While we are talking about solutions and stuff, why not even examine a solution of a multi-level parkade? Heck we can go about 8 stories tall, as there is already that Lions Senior centre in HSB that is at least that tall.

Then, having set this precedent, we can go with a multi-tier holding facility at Tsa too, seeing as that area is all protected by treaty now and other legislation.

[hwy19man]

hardy said:

There is only one thing standing in the way of any future expansion --- NIMBY.

Just as with most "public good" projects, it seems so cut and dried to those who are not immediately affected, but the residents nearby will all oppose it. Personally, I too am a "greater good" person, but the NIMBY's always seem to win.

While we are talking about solutions and stuff, why not even examine a solution of a multi-level parkade? Heck we can go about 8 stories tall, as there is already that Lions Senior centre in HSB that is at least that tall.

Then, having set this precedent, we can go with a multi-tier holding facility at Tsa too, seeing as that area is all protected by treaty now and other legislation.

Good points about the Nimby syndrome. Don't forget about allowing multi-tier parking at Swartz Bay, Dep. Bay, and Duke Point too!

[Ferryman]

Too bad they didn't consider replacing the Larson Creek bridge sooner, otherwise they could have gotten Kiewit to replace it while they have absolutely everything dug up for the concrete jungle of overpasses that will suddenly appear within the next year at the top of the hill, with all of the Sea to Sky highway upgrades.

....Actually, thinking about it now, and no, they're making a good choice to wait until that's all done. They're going to have to re-root traffic somewhere, and probably will probably use the old entrance to the Sea to Sky and then making a temporary branch off of that road back down into the terminal holding lanes.

[Scott]

I was at Horseshoe Bay last night and noticed a few of the problems talked about here. Arriving at the terminal I noticed the 2 sailing wait... traffic was quite heavily backed up outside of the toll booths, although not onto the highway. Rough estimate of 300+ cars outside the terminal. I wasn't driving on, so I just went down to the village to park. When I was in the terminal and on the Queen of Coquitlam in Berth 2... she had started loading cars and the Queen of Capilano had come into Berth 3. The Queen of Coquitlam had to stop loading on the lower car deck while the Queen of Capilano unloaded. So nothing can be loaded in Berth 1 or 2 if Berth 3 is discharging traffic. And nothing can be loaded in Berth 1 if Berth 2 is discharging traffic either.

So I don't see much point in adding another berth. There's not really any room left to do so and the new berth would always be at the mercy of the other berths being used. Unless they hugely modify traffic movement in and out of the terminal (do they have the space to do that?) there just isn't room to co-ordinate another berth into the system.

There's very little room to expand the terminal anywhere but upwards. The residents will complain about anything being done. Few of them were there before the ferry terminal, though, so what can they really say? The least obtrusive way to expand the terminal would be to (as others have mentioned) add another level on top of/or under the whole terminal. They could probably almost double the holding capacity of the terminal (or more if they added more than one level). If they could landscape it properly, it could be made to look quite nice.

Could Horseshoe Bay handle 4 ferries on route 2 as well as two ferries on route 3 and one ferry on the Bowen run? Seven ferries coming in and out at peak times. Hasn't it been done before? There wouldn't be a problem if you could guarantee the ferries would be on time all the time.

[Scott]

And who said traffic hadn't increased in the last 6 years? The graph in that PDF file sure shows otherwise.

[Political Incorrectness]

At Tsawwassen cause they handle 8 vessels but they have 5 berths. The one thing that could not happen is delays or breakdowns and probably the Capilano could not do a mid day break unless it was at snug cove. I do doubt BCFS will up the vessel total to 4 vessels on route 2 in some ways since they are in a mission to retire the Vs.

[Northern Exploration]

Here is an idea. Build up and add a green roof with a park on top for open to the public (ferry geeks) for viewing the ferries coming and going . With security being tightened though it would probably only be open to paid customers. It wouldn't stop the uproar about expansion but at least would look better than just another paved expanse.

I can't see them adding a berth because that would involve removing part of the marina and access roads into Horsehoe Bay itself.

I do think however that a relief terminal somewhere further along the Sea to Sky maybe something that will come about eventually but it may not be for a while. In case of emergencies like the bomb threat or even a pipe burst like in Burnaby, at least some traffic could be diverted to there. Perhaps the Langdale or Bowen Island ferries could move there eventually. The ferries could run a shuttle service for those few who may come as a foot passenger from Departure Bay and want to go to Langdale etc.

[Northern Exploration]

Tswwassen is also a maintenance base so needs extra berths for final fitting out or docking of relief vessels etc. As a ps to the above I wonder if there are contingency plans to ever use Deas as an emergency loading facility. There isn't holding room there for vehicles but in a pinch might help somewhat.

[markkarj]

hardy said:

hile we are talking about solutions and stuff, why not even examine a solution of a multi-level parkade? Heck we can go about 8 stories tall, as there is already that Lions Senior centre in HSB that is at least that tall.

Interesting points. I know I've brought this up before, but what the hell...

I remember part of the logic for the fast cats was to run the ships more often, take fewer cars, but drop them off in more even "pulses" which would be easier on the highways on each end and lead to better management of and reduced pressure on the terminals (as traffic would be moved through more evenly).

I wonder if BC Ferries would ever revive the concept... smaller, conventional ships that could maybe do say 25 knots, running the ships more frequently... I suppose the capital and labour costs would be brutal to staff multiple ships for such a purpose. Oh well, perish the thought.

[Hardy]

hwy19man said:

Good points about the Nimby syndrome. Don't forget about allowing multi-tier parking at Swartz Bay, Dep. Bay, and Duke Point too!

I don't want multi-tier PARKING, I want multi-leveled traffic holding areas/compounds! Stack the cars UP, not OUT. This will require an interesting designed "parkade-like" structure that can have two "ramps" for up and down traffic simultaneously, as well as proper traffic flow and queuing. I view this as a challenge, not an obstacle.

As far as NIMBY-ism, it has, and always will be a problem.

[Hardy]

in concept (only), the idea behind the Fast Cats and the higher speed, pulsed traffic and more trips is sound. The application of it and the implementation, however, did not work so well. I would summize that anything Fast Cat related will not come to fruition any time soon, least of all under the Liberals.

[Ferryman]

Heh, there is already multi tier parking at Horseshoe Bay, which is even 3 levels high, and is situated directly below the Nanaimo bound vehicles holding lanes....or directly below where the toll booths used to be located back in the day. This was built in 2002, and this was where I put a nice dent in the front fender of my car while backing out of one of the stalls on my way home, from one of the thousand group Ferry trips we've done. Albeit I was in a rush, and was quite tired, which resulted in me not allowing for much focus for both the front and back of the vehicle, instead of just the back.......

Anyways, the topic!...forgot about that for a second.....

Anyways, I'm a supporter of multi level traffic holding areas as well. Even though it was already discussed that no more expansion outwards was really physically possible any more, because pretty soon there'd be no more downtown Horseshoe Bay. Probably a good idea to start considering a replacement for the current concrete two level. I'm sure it's felt the odd minor earthquake over the passed 30 or so years. Demolition of this structure would have to be done in sections, and would also be a pain, because this stucture provides access to upper car decks at all 3 of the berths. Maybe it would be better to just move traffic bound from Departure Bay to Horseshoe Bay, to Departure Bay to Tsawwassen instead while this work is going on...

[DENelson83]

If Horseshoe Bay Terminal wants to add a fourth berth, why not just do it a bit further up Howe Sound, unless the terrain there is way too steep.

[Hardy]

denelson83 said:

If Horseshoe Bay Terminal wants to add a fourth berth, why not just do it a bit further up Howe Sound, unless the terrain there is way too steep.

Interesting solution, but somehow I do not think that it would be too feasible. Even using something like Porteau Cove for service on one of the smaller routes, would be tough. The infrastructure to support a terminal makes it not economically viable. Plus I don't think that the "shipping routes" to any of the destinations would be very well served out of anything other than HSB. Where are you going to go from Porteau? Bowen? Not quite so direct. Langdale? This may work, but would any potential terminal there be big enough to handle the traffic?

I think a new traffic pattern at HSB might be the best -- redesign how traffic is handled so that more than one berth can be in use at once; the current arrangement, as discussed, does not allow for multi-vessel loading/unloading. At least at Tsawwassen, you can use pretty well ALL berths at the same time, if you need to, without very much cross flow of traffic.

I think that HSB's current design is systemic of just "tacking bits on" rather than looking at the big picture. As a crown corp back in the day, rather than looking ahead far enough and doing the major infrastructure work, they just cobbled bits on and now we have the confusing blender that resembles the old Cape Horn interchange!

[hwy19man]

If this grand project does get passed, then all of it should be 100% completed as designed. I seem to recall that the Tsawwassen terminal had some of its plans cut back during the 1990s construction period, such as two berths for tie-up only, an interchange where the traffic lights are, and double decking berth 2.

[kylefossett]

pnwtraveler said:

Tswwassen is also a maintenance base so needs extra berths for final fitting out or docking of relief vessels etc. As a ps to the above I wonder if there are contingency plans to ever use Deas as an emergency loading facility. There isn't holding room there for vehicles but in a pinch might help somewhat.

ships arriving or departing deas are all dependant on the tides.

[Retrovision]

pnwtraveler said:

...I wonder if there are contingency plans to ever use Deas as an emergency loading facility...

I would guess so considering the ammount of pavement they have out there. It seems like they have more than they would need, maybe adequate during refit season, but during the busy holidays and down-time at Deas, I could see this being in the contingency plans.
Check it out for yourselves: www.tinyurl.com/36vl54

[Neil]

With five berths at Tsawwassen, what possible circumstances could ever see them loading or unloading at Deas? Seems like a rather odd notion, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Northern Exploration]

The idea about Deas was in response to the bomb threat that shut down the terminal. I was also thinking about the trouble docking during particularly high seas or wind. While remote that it would ever happen, an oil spill near one of the terminals could interrupt traffic. Interruptions in service have a huge cost to the economy with so many people and businesses reliant on the ferries. However, I wasn't aware of the tides issue at Deas. Having some sort of backup somewhere would lessen the exposure of BC Ferries to problems. In a pinch Sidney could be used if something interrupted Swartz Bay for example. I don't think anyone could afford a parallel facility so parking and holding would be a problem where-ever. But as a short term temporary measure to bring some relief is all I was thinking.

A good business always has contingency plans and if nothing else 9/11 taught us about being too reliant on a few locations. All the trading that was centred in the WTC for the financial world etc. was dramatically impacted because there weren't any backup sites set up and too many things were centralized in one location.