New Seabus: Burrard Pacific Breeze
 

John Colebourn
The Province

Thursday, June 12, 2008


TransLink said yesterday it has signed an agreement to build its long-planned third SeaBus for Burrard Inlet.

The $25-million vessel will be built at the Washington Marine Group shipyard in Victoria and is to go into service in summer 2009.

TransLink chairman Dale Parker said the addition of a third SeaBus will cut wait times during peak hours by five minutes.

At peak times, the SeaBus will run every 10 minutes compared to the current 15 minutes.

The new SeaBus initially will replace one of the two older vessels during its refit. The two existing boats were built 31 years ago.

Parker said all three 400-passenger vessels will be in service by early 2010, in time for the Winter Olympics.

"This is a key piece of our expansion," said Parker. "This is a big day for us."

Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon said B.C. will chip in $4.8 million of the cost.

"By 2010, all three vessels will be running and once every 10 minutes during peak times, so that's great for folks using the system."

Malcolm Barker of the Washington Marine Group said the vessel will be as fuel-efficient as possible.

"This vessel will be the greenest of vessels," he said.

"The vessel will be built on budget and will be on time."

He said the project will allow the company to keep existing apprentices fully employed.

North Vancouver Mayor Darrell Mussatto said that with the high price of gasoline, the SeaBus addition "couldn't come at a better time."

"People are looking for alternatives to driving," he said.

North Vancouver District Mayor Richard Walton said cutting wait times by five minutes will be a huge bonus for commuters.

"It does get very crowded during the rush hour," he said. "This is really good news."

Student Emilia Pelech, 21, said she uses the SeaBus daily and would welcome better service.

"I like the SeaBus and this is good for commuters," she said.

She would like to see the SeaBus run every 15 minutes during non-peak hours.

"It would be nice if they ran it every 15 minutes on weekends," she said.

jcolebourn@png.canwest.com

© The Vancouver Province 2008

Would it be possible to extend the Canada Line from its current terminus at Waterfront Station to North Vancouver someday?

From what I understand, the tunnel is too shallow at Waterfront to be able to dive under the seabed, the trains simply cant handle the type of grade needed to stay underground. Maybe they could try one of those floating tunnels, but I can't see that happening for a long time - they're rather unproven, and obviously very expensive.

Forget the new $25 Million Sea Bus and the costs of running the other two, Translink and the City of Vancouver should construct a bridge for the skytrain to North and West Van. All three of the municipalities and translink should split the costs of constructing the new line and bridge.

I'm postive West Van would not chip in at all as they would not want skytrain running anywhere near them. Pretty sure North Van feels the same way.

^^ True. West Van residents are hyper nimbies. There's no way they'd want skytrain running through. Besides, everyone has access to a Bentley or something of that nature.

Probably not worth the money right now anyway. If you wanted to go with the most direct route, as opposed to running skytrain over to the second narrows, I would think you'd want a George Massey Tunnel type of option. A bridge of that length, I'm guessing, would be a hell of a lot more expensive. Anyway, as long as the seabus can handle the demand there won't be much talk of a skytrain crossing, other than from us. ;)

they could always link belcarra and deep cove and give better access from the eastern suburbs/fraser valley to north and west van

the seabus does a good job as is

people here are so lazy they don't wanna make transfers

lame

The problem isn't the transfer. It's the duration of the trip.

The crossing is 12 minutes in length, roughly. But don't forget that during peak hours, the congestion up the runway to Waterfront Station can add another 5 to 10 minutes.

A Skytrain crossing over Burrard Inlet would take... what... 4 or 5 minutes tops?

thats not that bad

most people seem to enjoy the relaxation

we aren't toronto after all where its a rat race

^ Good point. A SkyTrain link-up would be nice, but it would also change the nature of the North Shore forever. Goodbye "small-town" North Van... hello "power suburb" ala Burnaby or Richmond.

I'm fine with keeping the SeaBus as is... funny thing is that I don't think people notice it's a 10 minute ferry ride since it's such an enjoyable experience.

I had a vision where the Hastings LRT extended over the Lions Gate Bridge (vehicles use tunnel near the bridge) to Ampleside, and then LRT to Lonsdale. But still keeping the SeaBus.

its not like the north shore is going to be able to get any bigger either

i think a simple streetcar up lonsdale and one that runs along the waterfront - as it did back in the day would serve it pretty well

it would cost way too much money to justify the cost of serving a fairly stagnant population

north vancouver is also a place where you choose to live knowing your limited transport options

I agree. As a north shore resident i would love to see rapid tranist to make my life easier it is just not needed badly enough at this point. Perhaps a few dozen years down the road but there are other places in the region that need it so much more than here.

Yeah I could see that going over well... a rapid transit line linking Hastings directly to West Van! :haha:

Personally I like the seabus, especially on a sunny day, but I ride it about 3 times a year. If you were commuting on it every day, I think you'd be pretty sick of it, especially on rainy/windy winter days.

Run LRT down the centre of Lion's Gate re-institute a toll and make the bridge one-lane in each direction. The Park board's happy (less car traffic through Stanley Park) the North Shore gets excellent transit, and use the toll to buy carbon credits (The environmentalists are happy).

one problem... the British Properties.

they should build some of these puppies

http://itp.nyu.edu/spatialdesign/blo...0(reduced).jpg

source

I'm pretty sure the Lion's Gate bridge would not be able to support the additional weight of LRT. Large trucks are not even allowed on the bridge. The third lane is also vital for clearing accidents.

Well the extra weight of the LRT would be offset by the reduction in weight from less cars and trucks being on the bridge

Large trucks are not allowed on the bridge because the lanes are so narrow. In addition, they want truck traffic going over the 2nd narrows.

The Lion's Gate can Easily support the weight of a tram. You COULD make it trams and buses only during rush periods. You could still use the lane in the event of an accident.

Marginally related ....

Yeah... somehow fixed rails on a floating bridge don't seem like a great idea.

How?

Stray current and corrosion of the steel.

I think the problems related to trying to retrofit the bridge to allow trams to use it aren't worth the benefits it would provide.

Using the money to buy a fleet of commuter ferries to zig-zag across Burrard Inlet would be a wiser investment.

I don't know... Burrard Inlet is a busy route. And it still takes time to get across. Would retrofitting the Lion's gate to accommodate trams REALLY be that difficult?

Well the obvious problem would be that with one set of tracks you would really limit the capacity of the tram route. I'm pretty sure it would be a no-go with the park board to expand it to 2 directions of travel through the Stanley Park causeway. So with one line all you could really do is a West Coast Express style system where you run the trams into town in the morning and out of town in the afternoon. With such limited capacity you'd hardly convert any North Shore drivers to transit users.

I'm quite sure the bridge deck would have to be completely overhauled for the installation of tracks (assuming the bridge could actually support the extra weight.

The grades on the bridge deck between center-span and West Van are probably on the upper limit of what a tram could easily handle.

The other issue would be that the only real high density area on the North Shore is around Lonsdale... which is already well served by the seabus and is a much faster commute into town.

I'm never a huge fan of simply removing lanes, like the previous proposal to remove a lane from each side of the Burrard Street Bridge to accommodate fantastic bike lanes BUT if lanes are removed and replaced with fast public such as TRAMS, ALRT, etc. I think it's great.

The simply notion of sitting in your car stuck in traffic while the transit vehicle whizzes by should encourage many to explore that alternative.

I think a ferry from Ambleside or even from Park Royal would take some time to make it to downtown and there is the problem, as mentioned, of congestion in Burrard Inlet.

LRT over Lions Gate makes little sense because everyone on that side of the north shore commutes by car and always will. They'd be the last neighbourhood in Vancouver to give up cars. It needs to service the poor schmucks living in condos/apartments in the Lonsdale area.

If they built LRT on Lions Gate I'd still take the seabus.

How about adding an extra bridge deck? The support towers are strong enough for one, right?

They can build an elevated overhead guideway right over the causeway in Stanley Park.

And there is a pocket of density around the Park Royal/Ambleside area.

Even if the LRT offers a time advantage and commuting over the Lions Gate becomes more of a congested nightmare?

What they should do is straighten out the Skytrain at Burrard to serve the Robson Corridor and the North Shore, and let the Canada Line serve Waterfront Station, with the two lines criss-crossing at Granville/Robson Stations.

Yeah, I guess fitting two rails on one lane is not possible. Darn laws of nature.

Even with one rail, I don't necessarily think it's not doable... it can't take more than a few minutes to cross the span, so frequencies could be every 5 minutes with properly timed trains.

I was also thinking about the medium-term goal to remove all traffic from the Lion's Gate Bridge and through Stanley Park.

Does anyone know the depth of Burrard inlet?

Does anyone know the feasibility of actually burying the roadway leading up to the Lion's Gate Bridge? A Big Dig kind of thing, turning the surface top into a linear park.

If there was a third crossing, what do you think would happen to the Lion's Gate? Revert to two lanes, plus a transit lane and wider cyclist and pedestrian lanes?

I suppose in that case some would, but preferably we'd provide public transit to those who need and want it rather than those who don't want it.

There was lots of talk about that when Lions Gate was renovated but it was nixed for some reason, I assume price.

I doubt any changes will be made to the Lions Gate Bridge any time soon. I wouldn't expect even modest bus schedule improvements in North Van, especially when bus depots are apparently not permitted. I don't think West Van would want a light rail line, anyway.

If memory serves, the new modular deck of the Lions Gate was designed to be light and thin because the towers were not designed with much extra capacity. The original deck was narrower than the current deck: the sidewalks were inside the towers and the lanes were very narrow. However, they did remove the steel trusses on each side of the deck, again if memory serves, that were there to prevent a repeat of galloping gertie. That should have taken some weight off? Tram cars aren't light either... they weigh about as much as the heaviest semi-trailers on the road.

Price was the main reason probably. Another reason was that even if they did bury the causeway ventilation shafts would have to come up above ground all the was along the route so the area could never really be reforested.

The new wider deck has its strcture under the roadway and apparently weighs roughly the same as the old narrower deck.
There was a proposal to expand to 6 lanes (double-decker) but that would have required the conversion of the bridge to a cable-stayed span and the heightening of the existing towers.

^For a conversion like that I would imagine it would be cheaper to just knock it down and start fresh.

Personally I think the bridge is perfect as is. A beauty like it shouldn't be tinkered with too much.

I think the Lions Gate Bridge is a heritage site, hence untouchable.

What's more, is there much point in having both the Skytrain and Canada Line run between Granville/Robson and Waterfront Stations now, considering it's a short walk between them? Let the Expo Line keep running west.

Here's what my idea of a rerouted Expo Line looks like, Main Street Station westward:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...,0.142651&z=13

The first thing that came to my mind was the BART transbay tube in SF with a maximum depth of 41 metres under the bay that was opened in 1974. It was considered quite an engineering feet back in the day when they built the steel tubular sections on land and floated 'em out and sunk 'em.

http://pier70sf.org/history/barttube.jpg

The maximum depth of Burrard Inlet between Canada Place and Lonsdale is only 25 - 50 metres based upon these map profiles:

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/SCI/osa...th_profile.gif

And yeah, a direct connection to high-density Lonsdale would make logistical sense as opposed to running same over the LGB but that's still a loooooong ways out.

I like it, though the only problem is it wouldnt serve the main CBD at Burrard Station, making it more of a burden for commuters....The expo line could be branched tho with a terminus at Waterfront and one in West Van

Okay then, I just moved Thurlow Station back to Burrard, and added another station at Jervis.

Surely, the suits with the briefcases can manage to walk an extra couple of blocks. Anyways, I'm trying to strike a compromise between serving the business suits and the Robson St. crowd and the rest of the downtown peninsula, while accomodating a southward expansion of the CBD. If the combined Expo and the Millenium Lines are too much for Robson and West Van, then I suppose one of them can bend back towards Waterfront.

Heck, maybe we can even run two parallel lines along Dunsmuir and Robson between the stadiums and Burrard, while keeping the old Skytrain line intact. There's enough traffic to justify both lines, right?

Personally what i would like to see happen would be the Millennium Line solely be an east-west line, from UBC to Douglas College via Lougheed. The Expo Line should be branched off to have to termini, one at 168th Street in Surrey, and the other at Lougheed (using the third platform). On the northern end it could also be split into two at the ends with one terminated at Waterfront and another going to West Van. As Below (obviously very crude 2 minute drawing, but you get the point)

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/8466/skytrainis8.jpg

West Van would be a waste. It wouldn't shape growth and there's little existing demand. Extensions and new lines in the valley and city make far more sense than lines in executive suburbs. Same thing goes for the Arbutus line.

What's wrong with the looparound Millenium Line? Traffic's going to be much heavier along Broadway in Vancouver than in the Tri-Cities, so you might as well have the loop route to supplement the load. Besides, the Sapperton and Braid passengers might want a one seat ride going towards Broadway.

I'm sure WV has its share of kids and seniors who can't drive, not to mention those who are frustrated with driving across the Lions Gate Bridge. And if not for them, then what about the Horseshoe Bay ferry passengers and possibly future Sea-to-Sky bus transfers?

^Kids and seniors hardly need to go into town. I don't think you can built a mass transit line which caters to those demographics.

If you haven't already noticed, the people who live on the North Shore on this forum are the ones who are saying that rapid transit isn't needed.

I'll let you in on a little secret. The commute over the Lion's Gate bridge isn't bad at all and even if it's a slow go the scenery is so spectacular that no-one minds. I spent the last couple of years commuting from Lynn Valley into downtown across the Lion's Gate bridge and and I could usually do it in 20 minutes. In that time I never grew tired of the views along the way.

When I was commuting over the lions gate in the morning, it was rare to even have to slow down. It depends on the exact time in the morning... except when there are accidents, it might take as much as 3 or 4 minutes. The bridge can get congested in the afternoon, especially on weekends, when everyone heads over town to go to the beach and people are returning from Whistler and the island.

Would they be the ones who don't want people moving near them?

Considering the people served would include Robson Street visitors, West Enders, Stanley Park visitors, North Vanners, West Vanners, ferry passengers (Vancouver Island, Sunshine Coast and Bowen Island) and Sea-to-Sky residents and travellers, I think you'll have more than enough traffic to justify this route.

I've always found the traffic moves the fastest when it's rush hour. It's partly because you don't get the slow leisure drivers but I also think having an extra lane on Georgia going into town makes a huge difference.

A few years ago West Pender was closed because of that construction excavation cave-in. As a result that extra lane on Georgia was closed. The traffic then became miserable and backed up well into Stanley Park.