|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 27, 2014 17:34:00 GMT -8
What about instead moving Route 2 to end at Duke Point? I think this has been discussed in another thread, but I'm not positive about that. On the surface, it seems like having a combined Nanaimo terminal at Duke Point makes sense - good highway connection, gets the large volume of traffic out of the residential neightbourhood adjacent to Departure Bay, etc. However, it would take a HUGE amount of capital to expand the Duke Point Terminal. You would need at least two additional berths, possibly even 3. That's a lot of new ramp connections, not to mention the additional sky walks for foot passengers, and then there's the terminal building itself and the parking. I think a garage would be needed at that point because there really is no room to expand any surface lots. Then there's the transit connection issue. BC Transit would have to step up to the plate to add bus service out to Duke Point, and to make it feasible for walk-ons, it would probably want to be an express bus type of service into downtown Nanaimo. Moving on to the vehicle marshaling area, I'm pretty sure that would have to be expanded, and while there appears to be a little bit of vacant land just to the south of the vehicle entrance (between the entrance and the saw mill), who owns that land? Would that have to be acquired from The Mill? I'm not saying it isn't possible, I'm just not sure how feasible it is from a $$$ standpoint. Besides, BC Ferries recently sunk a whole bunch of money into improving the Departure Bay Terminal, so I'm not sure they would be too anxious to simply write that off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2014 19:54:48 GMT -8
What about instead moving Route 2 to end at Duke Point? It might not be bad to route Nanaimo-Bound traffic from HSB to Duke Point, because it would put less traffic and noise stress on the City of Nanaimo and the people who live in the area by Departure Bay. It would be worth considering this, but I don't think that Duke Point could handle this much traffic, cars and vessels with only 1 berth. A 2nd or 3rd berth would NEED to be considered. The vessels could be set like this:
(Note: Route 2A and 2B would be seperate, either one or the other, not both) Route 1: SWB-TSA Spirit of BC Spirit of VI/Coastal Celebration (Season dependent) Queen of New West (Backup, Season dependent, if available)
Route 2: HSB-DPB Eliminated
Route 3: HSB-SUNCOAST Queen of Surrey (Full Time) Queen of Coquitlam (Season dependent, if needed)
Route 30: TSA-DKP Coastal Inspiration Coastal Renaissance Queen of Alberni (Peak travel times/holidays) Queen of New West (Peak times/holidays, if available)
Route 2A: HSB-DKP Queen of Cowichan Queen of Oak Bay Queen of Chilliwack (Possibility, capacity may be limited, as it is 115 cars)
Another possibility would be to move the Chilliwack to Route 7 and move the I-Sky from Route 7 for backup on Routes 3, 8 my 2A from HSB-DKP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2014 20:42:07 GMT -8
My diagram of possible upgrades to Duke Point to allow for Route 2 and 30 to operate out of Duke Point The berth and overhead loading area The tollbooth, staging and parking area
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Oct 27, 2014 21:24:34 GMT -8
If you look really closely at the existing berth structure, @estate2014, you will notice a "stub" protruding opposite from Berth 1. Originally Duke Point was designed to have a second berth at that location but it was never built due to some environmental issues and/or cost. I'm sure one of our members can provide some further insight into this. They berth layout you show would be awfully expensive to build because of how far it goes out into the water and the depth of the water there would likely make driving piles for the berth structure un-feasible. Expanding the holding compound like you've shown would be quite costly due to the fact that beyond the edge of the compound, there is quite a steep drop-off to the water so expansion would require expensive rock fill and/or large pillars to support a cantilevered structure. Just some food for thought
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Oct 27, 2014 21:37:04 GMT -8
If you look really closely at the existing berth structure, @estate2014, you will notice a "stub" protruding opposite from Berth 1. Originally Duke Point was designed to have a second berth at that location but it was never built due to some environmental issues and/or cost. I'm sure one of our members can provide some further insight into this. They berth layout you show would be awfully expensive to build because of how far it goes out into the water and the depth of the water there would likely make driving piles for the berth structure un-feasible. Expanding the holding compound like you've shown would be quite costly due to the fact that beyond the edge of the compound, there is quite a steep drop-off to the water so expansion would require expensive rock fill and/or large pillars to support a cantilevered structure. Just some food for thought I think that if Duke Point ever gets expanded, it will be vertically. I think that a 2-story holding compound (think Horseshoe Bay but bigger) would work best, as it doubles holding capacity without doubling up on land or having the expensive over-the-cliff problems. Parking would also go multi-story with a garage, instead of expanding in the forest and over the cliff. As for more berths, as Coastal Skier mentioned, there's the southern one that would be relatively easy to build, except maybe for the passenger plank. Then I think the solution is going angled, parallel to the current berth but a bit further south. Adding on after that would be hard and very costly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2014 21:48:38 GMT -8
If you look really closely at the existing berth structure, @estate2014, you will notice a "stub" protruding opposite from Berth 1. Originally Duke Point was designed to have a second berth at that location but it was never built due to some environmental issues and/or cost. I'm sure one of our members can provide some further insight into this. They berth layout you show would be awfully expensive to build because of how far it goes out into the water and the depth of the water there would likely make driving piles for the berth structure un-feasible. Expanding the holding compound like you've shown would be quite costly due to the fact that beyond the edge of the compound, there is quite a steep drop-off to the water so expansion would require expensive rock fill and/or large pillars to support a cantilevered structure. Just some food for thought I think that if Duke Point ever gets expanded, it will be vertically. I think that a 2-story holding compound (think Horseshoe Bay but bigger) would work best, as it doubles holding capacity without doubling up on land or having the expensive over-the-cliff problems. Parking would also go multi-story with a garage, instead of expanding in the forest and over the cliff. As for more berths, as Coastal Skier mentioned, there's the southern one that would be relatively easy to build, except maybe for the passenger plank. Then I think the solution is going angled, parallel to the current berth but a bit further south. Adding on after that would be hard and very costly. Having a berth off of the stub you mentioned would be interesting, so would the double decker holding compound. But the stub berth might be hard for vessels to access, except for the Queen of New Westminster, since she has to back in
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Oct 27, 2014 22:08:33 GMT -8
But the stub berth might be hard for vessels to access, except for the Queen of New Westminster, since she has to back in Not at all, since she powerslides in. It's the departure which would take more time since the boat would have to turn around in the bay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 14:18:41 GMT -8
But the stub berth might be hard for vessels to access, except for the Queen of New Westminster, since she has to back in Not at all, since she powerslides in. It's the departure which would take more time since the boat would have to turn around in the bay. I don't get how the New Westminster does her turning around on Route 30. Could someone explain it for me?
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 28, 2014 14:27:48 GMT -8
I don't get how the New Westminster does her turning around on Route 30. Could someone explain it for me? New West docks stern-in at Duke Point which means they run her past the berth, turn her around (the "power slide", as it were), then run back up alongside the berth with the stern now facing toward the ramps, and ease her into the berth. Here are a couple of pics of her that I took once upon a time doing the turn in the bay to line up with the berth:
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 28, 2014 14:42:45 GMT -8
Not at all, since she powerslides in. It's the departure which would take more time since the boat would have to turn around in the bay. I don't get how the New Westminster does her turning around on Route 30. Could someone explain it for me? I will explain it with this video of mine:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 14:49:31 GMT -8
I don't get how the New Westminster does her turning around on Route 30. Could someone explain it for me? I will explain it with this video of mine: Oh, now I get it. Do any other vessels do it like that? Does the New West do it the same way at Tsawasseen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 14:56:56 GMT -8
I will explain it with this video of mine: Oh, now I get it. Do any other vessels do it like that? Does the New West do it the same way at Tsawasseen? Actually estate2014, most BCF berths were originally set up for use by single enders. Langdale, Westview, Swartz Bay, Departure Bay, and Long Harbour are all terminals where single-enders back in. As for Tsawwassen, all vessels dock bow-to.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 28, 2014 15:00:08 GMT -8
Oh, now I get it. Do any other vessels do it like that? Does the New West do it the same way at Tsawasseen? Here is the guideline for the various BCFerries single-ended ships on the major routes: - they all dock stern-in at the Vancouver Island terminals - they all dock bow-in at the Mainland terminals Make a paper cut-out of a ship, label one end as "bow" and the other end as "stern" and then have fun moving the paper around on a table to simulate how it needs to turn on a trip. Hint: no turning required on a trip FROM Vancouver Island to the Mainland...
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 28, 2014 15:08:22 GMT -8
I will explain it with this video of mine: Oh, now I get it. Do any other vessels do it like that? Does the New West do it the same way at Tsawasseen? Any single-ender working the Duke Point route would have to do the same as the QoNW. In reality today, no single-enders, other than the QoNW, are ever assigned to that route, though in the past, other V-class, such as the Queen of Vancouver, did work the route. At Tsawwassen, as stated above, the single-ended vessels go in by the bow so no fancy manoeuvres there. On the other hand, single-enders departing Tsawwasen must back out & turn around before getting up to speed & heading off to their destination. The Spirit class are single-enders & must turn around, as is also true for the QoNW & its sister, the Queen of Nanaimo.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 28, 2014 15:19:15 GMT -8
Oh, now I get it. Do any other vessels do it like that? Does the New West do it the same way at Tsawasseen? Any single-ender working the Duke Point route would have to do the same as the QoNW. In reality today, no single-enders, other than the QoNW, are ever assigned to that route, though in the past, other V-class, such as the Queen of Vancouver, did work the route. At Tsawwassen, as stated above, the single-ended vessels go in by the bow so no fancy manoeuvres there. On the other hand, single-enders departing Tsawwasen must back out & turn around before getting up to speed & heading off to their destination. The Spirit class are single-enders & must turn around, as is also true for the QoNW & its sister, the Queen of Nanaimo. And closer to estate2014's home in Puget Sound, he can research the historical movements of wood-electric ferries Enetai and Willapa.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 28, 2014 15:23:00 GMT -8
Here is the guideline for the various BCFerries single-ended ships on the major routes: - they all dock stern-in at the Vancouver Island terminals - they all dock bow-in at the Mainland terminals There is an exception, the Comox - Powell River route, where the ship (normally the Queen of Burnaby) docks stern in on the mainland side (Powell River) & bow in on the Island side (Comox).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 15:41:35 GMT -8
Here is the guideline for the various BCFerries single-ended ships on the major routes: - they all dock stern-in at the Vancouver Island terminals - they all dock bow-in at the Mainland terminals There is an exception, the Comox - Powell River route, where the ship (normally the Queen of Burnaby) docks stern in on the mainland side (Powell River) & bow in on the Island side (Comox). OK. I get it now. I went to the Gulf Islands on the Queen of Nanaimo, and the Q-Cumber, and I didn't understand their turning around cycle
|
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Oct 28, 2014 17:44:37 GMT -8
Yeah, I'm aware of the fact that Duke Point would need at least that 2nd berth to make things work.
I'm interested in hearing the whole story about the environmental issue on building that 2nd berth; as I understand it was due to the limitations of engineering at the time of design to get around the environmental issue. Which if that's the case, I think could be revisited since there has been some advances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 18:54:55 GMT -8
There is an exception, the Comox - Powell River route, where the ship (normally the Queen of Burnaby) docks stern in on the mainland side (Powell River) & bow in on the Island side (Comox). OK. I get it now. I went to the Gulf Islands on the Queen of Nanaimo, and the Q-Cumber, and I didn't understand their turning around cycle The Queen of Cumberland and Mayne Queen are operated as single enders, as it makes multiple-port loading easier.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 28, 2014 21:06:34 GMT -8
I know that some people including BCFS & BC Govt management types look at Nanaimo and say "Why do we have three terminals there, each one serving just one route?" The idea would be to eliminate one or even two of them. I know that this has be discussed at some length here on this forum in the past.
Each terminal has its reasons for being; its strengths & weaknesses. In my humble opinion, if one or the other of Duke Point or Departure Bay is to be shut down, then let it be Duke Point. One reason I feel this way is that you drive for what, 20 km, from down town Nanaimo to gain virtually no advantage in shortening the ferry trip to the Mainland. At present there is just one berth, no transit, and little if anything to do while you wait for the next sailing. Departure Bay has got it beat hands down on all these fronts. Yes, Departure Bay is hobbled by poor connections to the main highways going through Nanaimo but that seems less of a 'con' than the collection of 'cons' at Duke Point. And let us not forget that the combined traffic through both terminals today is now less that what was going through Departure Bay in the late 1990's before Duke Point was built. BCFS (& the BC Government) are having excellent success in shrinking their market such that the number of cars carried annually will continue to drop in the foreseeable future.
If a terminal is to be closed, then right one to close is Duke Point.
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Oct 28, 2014 21:44:49 GMT -8
Close Departure Bay! It's older unless they where going to upgrade Departure Bay!
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 28, 2014 21:49:24 GMT -8
Close Departure Bay! It's older unless they where going to upgrade Departure Bay! Karl, yes, its older. Is that the only reason you would close it? Surely you can provide better justification for your point of view?
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Oct 28, 2014 22:11:44 GMT -8
Close Departure Bay! It's older unless they where going to upgrade Departure Bay! I cannot fathom where you got impression that Departure Bay's facilities are somehow older and further out of date. BC Ferries has undertaken several major upgrades in Departure Bay in recent history: -Upgrade for FastCats - Berth 3 (1998) -Upgrade for Super C Class - Berth 2 (2007) -Complete rebuild for Holding Lot, Parking Lot, Passenger Facilities, Crew Facilities (2009?) Departure Bay is practically a new terminal, compared to what it was 16 years ago.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Oct 28, 2014 22:21:56 GMT -8
First of all, I think it's a bit disappointing that this thread has gotten completely off kilter, with no discussion of the actual thread heading. I'd encourage people to read the document... or at least, skim it. There's a lot there to interest transportation nerds and fans alike. I'm currently plowing through it, belatedly, and I'll have some comments.
On the route 2/30 question... keep both. The population of greater Vancouver is divided more or less evenly between those living north or south of the Fraser, and depending on location, Tsawwassen and Horseshoe Bay work well for access to the central and north Island. Future growth in ferry traffic, both commercial and private, will probably skew towards Tsawwassen. Duke Point offers space for drop trailer traffic- you simply can't do that at Departure Bay, but Horseshoe Bay is essential for traffic from the city and the north shore, and Departure Bay has been upgraded and is historically proven to be a natural terminal for a good portion of mainland commercial and private travel.
An either/or attitude is going to hurt cross strait tourism, travel, and commerce. And in the meantime, read the thing.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Oct 28, 2014 22:28:41 GMT -8
But the stub berth might be hard for vessels to access, except for the Queen of New Westminster, since she has to back in Not at all, since she powerslides in. It's the departure which would take more time since the boat would have to turn around in the bay. Actually, SolDuc, I'm with @estate2014 on this one. I think that stub berth, if built, would be very difficult and cumbersome for a double ended ferry to use. In order to get a straight shot into that berth an approaching double ended ferry would have to make a very wide 180degree turn in the bay due north of Dodd Narrows, and still line up straight with the berth. They won't have much of a run to get a dead-straight approach, which means lots of time getting positioned in the berth. Never mind that the ferry would have to dodge pleasure and commercial traffic (log tows) that can be quite heavy through Dodd Narrows at slack tide and would be passing through the area the ferry needs to make its turn. This is already a problem with the use of double-enders at some of the terminals designed for single enders. I truly believe a single ender could get into and out of Langdale (either slip) faster than a C-Class can, solely because of the positioning of the berths.
|
|