Port of Vancouver Discussion

[Migrant_Coconut]

If they're thinking of spending who-knows-how-much CAD on raising the Lions' Gate, they should seriously consider allowing for a SkyTrain track over/under/across it too.

... Or maybe (emphasis on maybe) they could build a floating terminal out on English Bay that's connected to downtown?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If they're thinking of spending who-knows-how-much CAD on raising the Lions' Gate, they should seriously consider allowing for a SkyTrain track over/under/across it too.

I'm pretty certain that 'they're' not thinking of spending anything on raising the Lion's Gate Bridge. The Port looked at that possibility several years ago, and concluded that while it was theoretically possible from an engineering point of view, it would be too expensive to carry out. (That's putting aside the fact that the bridge doesn't fall within the Port's jurisdiction, and it would be important for the bridge to be open almost all the time, just as it was when they replaced the deck a few years ago). It's been mentioned here earlier that the Port are looking at whether another location could serve as an additional terminal, but they would require a transit connection, which doesn't currently exist anywhere appropriate. The economics of providing a transit link just for a cruise ship terminal would be terrible - and there are so many more appropriate and cost effective places to add transit first.

One solution to getting bigger ships into Canada Place was to modify the ship so that the mast lowers to fit under the bridge. Royal Caribbean's Celebrity Solstice had that done a few years ago.

The Province are spending around $15m to add a rock berm soon, to ensure that a passing ship can't hit the bridge, as it's considered critical to the transportation network and current federal bridge design regulations require an annual risk of collapse threshold of less than one in 10,000 - currently it's assessed as less than one in 1,000.

[jollyburger]

Delta and Richmond are being evaluated as second terminals.

In heavy competition with Seattle, the port has warned Canada Place won’t be able to accommodate the newer, much larger ships, and that those vessels would have a tough time navigating under the Lions Gate Bridge. The port last fall announced it was working with a consultant to look at the feasibility of a second terminal. The “pre-feasibility” study looked at Delta or Richmond as possible locations.

Port CEO and president Robin Silvester recently told the Optimist it’s still very early in the process of determining whether a second terminal will even be pursued and that there’s no set timeline.

“The preliminary study just shows that it might be feasible and it would be very expensive. We’re having some very early discussion with industry partners whether there’s any interest in it at all. It’s a long way off and very much a conceptual piece of work. It’s really at this stage looking at what options might there be and what sort of costs and possibilities there are,” he explained.

“It’s showing , as we know from Terminal 2 (proposed container terminal expansion), creating any new capacity is a long, complex , expensive process and we’re some significant way away from even starting that process…we’re really at the stage of asking whether there’s a business case for new capacity. If there was new capacity, it would most logically be outside the Burrard Inlet., but whether it’s Delta, whether it’s Richmond, whether it’s possible at all, those are questions are very much in the air at the moment.”

http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/d...pie-1.23265363

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by scryer

But raising the bridge seems like it would be a hell of a project.

Why raise the bridge when you can just dredge the channel so that the ships can go lower underneath it?

[aberdeen5698]

But seriously, folks, I wonder if it's actually possible to do that? It's a suspension bridge, so one could imagine a strategy that involves shortening the vertical suspenders.

I can't see how you could do it while keeping the bridge open for traffic, though.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Why raise the bridge when you can just dredge the channel so that the ships can go lower underneath it?

Could be feasible but also complicated?

I can't see how you could do it while keeping the bridge open for traffic, though.

Yeah, that's my biggest concern. Not that I'm all about maintaining certain traffic patterns in sacrifice of never changing anything for the better; but the Golden Gate Bridge is a significant route that drivers use. Closing the bridge would piss off the entire region.

Delta and Richmond are being evaluated as second terminals.

Also quite feasible. I think that we need an engineer to make his way to this thread.... BUT from my unprofessional ( ) speculation if I was going to make a second terminal, I would either make it in Steveston (which could be too shallow... again we need an expert) or in Tsawwassen because it already has the Ferry infrastructure and transit patterns in place.

... Or maybe (emphasis on maybe) they could build a floating terminal out on English Bay that's connected to downtown?

This would be incredibly innovative, and I think, it would be the best idea. English Bay would explode in business and the floating terminal would need to have an amazing design so that it doesn't piss off the locals, AND designed so that it can handle high volumes of merchandise deliveries. But yeah, a floating terminal would be an incredibly creative solution.

We also have to remember that Cruise ships can also use their tender boats to reach ports. It's a painful process for the passengers and crew but sometimes certain ports will have their own tender boats to assist the cruise ship in transportation of their guests to the shore. This could serve as a temporary solution for Vancouver while we battle out for a long term one.

However with using tender-boats it means that Vancouver would not be able to become the Turnaround port for the ship since they won't be able to receive merchandise. But becoming a tender port for the larger ships would at least keep Vancouver on the itinerary even though it isn't a turnaround port.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Why raise the bridge when you can just dredge the channel so that the ships can go lower underneath it?

How does that help the air draft? The boats are getting to be too tall. Adding a couple metres of tidal clearance isn't much of a long term solution.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Why raise the bridge when you can just dredge the channel so that the ships can go lower underneath it?

That just creates more room underwater, it doesn't lower the water level.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Jebby

That just creates more room underwater, it doesn't lower the water level.

Depends how deep you dig!

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Jebby

That just creates more room underwater, it doesn't lower the water level.

Ya think???

[Migrant_Coconut]

Obviously, the solution is to dig even deeper.

[casper]

Originally Posted by scryer

Could be feasible but also complicated?

Yeah, that's my biggest concern. Not that I'm all about maintaining certain traffic patterns in sacrifice of never changing anything for the better; but the Golden Gate Bridge is a significant route that drivers use. Closing the bridge would piss off the entire region.

Also quite feasible. I think that we need an engineer to make his way to this thread.... BUT from my unprofessional ( ) speculation if I was going to make a second terminal, I would either make it in Steveston (which could be too shallow... again we need an expert) or in Tsawwassen because it already has the Ferry infrastructure and transit patterns in place.

This would be incredibly innovative, and I think, it would be the best idea. English Bay would explode in business and the floating terminal would need to have an amazing design so that it doesn't piss off the locals, AND designed so that it can handle high volumes of merchandise deliveries. But yeah, a floating terminal would be an incredibly creative solution.

We also have to remember that Cruise ships can also use their tender boats to reach ports. It's a painful process for the passengers and crew but sometimes certain ports will have their own tender boats to assist the cruise ship in transportation of their guests to the shore. This could serve as a temporary solution for Vancouver while we battle out for a long term one.

However with using tender-boats it means that Vancouver would not be able to become the Turnaround port for the ship since they won't be able to receive merchandise. But becoming a tender port for the larger ships would at least keep Vancouver on the itinerary even though it isn't a turnaround port.

I don't think there are very many cruise lines interested in having Vancouver as a port of call. If they use Vancouver it is for turnaround. The cruses out of Seattle mostly use Victoria as the international port on the cruise to keep the cruise legal (as foreign flagged ships can not operate domestic US routes).

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Also I'm not subscribed to the Port's newsletters, but there's no website updates on the Centerm expansion that was supposed to start in January either. Last filing is from October. Could DP World be shifting even more investment north to Prince Rupert?

I was surprised to learn that the Centerm proposal was already approved with little fan fare back in mid April. Construction will start later this year, and is expected to be completed by Spring of 2022.

https://www.portvancouver.com/develo...nsion-project/

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by casper

I don't think there are very many cruise lines interested in having Vancouver as a port of call. If they use Vancouver it is for turnaround. The cruses out of Seattle mostly use Victoria as the international port on the cruise to keep the cruise legal (as foreign flagged ships can not operate domestic US routes).

Yes, also because cruises from Seattle don’t follow the Inside Passage but rather go on the west coast of Vancouver Island to Alaska to save time. A stop in Vancouver would mean a major detour.

[Gordon]

Vancouver is still the 2nd largest home port for Alaska cruises with over 900,000 passengers this year and over 1 million expected next year
The 3500 passenger Royal Princes will homeport in Vancouver next summer.

[WestCoastEcho]

I believe most of the cruise ports where cruise ships are using tenders are using vessels that are normally carried by the cruise ship itself, perhaps supplemented by whatever is provided by the port itself. Those tenders tend to be fairly small, as they often double as lifeboats for the cruise ships in an emergency.

Perhaps a better solution if we are to have these large cruise ships use tenders to visit Vancouver is to have a number of super-tenders operated by the Port; in short, a number of relatively high capacity vessels that can pull up alongside a cruise ship in Burrard Inlet, and take on hundreds of passengers at a time, along with cargo for the cruise ships. Create an anchorage point for the cruise ships just outside the harbour; how about off Dundarave Park, where the large cruise ships can berth, and take on passengers and cargo via tenders?

[SpongeG]

Seattle amps up Alaska cruise ship competition

Growth in the Washington city’s cruise sector is good news for Victoria, where most of the ships visit

By Glen Korstrom | January 11, 2019

Vancouver’s cruise sector is expecting growth, but competition from Seattle is set to intensify with the Port of Seattle readying to build a fourth cruise ship berth at a planned terminal to be jointly built with a yet-to-be-determined cruise line.

The Port of Seattle will release a request for proposals by March in an attempt to find a partner willing to pump US$100 million into a new US$200 million terminal at an undisclosed location along the Seattle waterfront, spokesman Peter McGraw told Business in Vancouver.

...

https://biv.com/article/2019/01/seat...GwdXRRlwKybfBg

[SpongeG]

Vancouver port development dealt difficult bridge hand

By Timothy Renshaw | January 14, 2019


The Second Narrows rail bridge is the sole rail link to the rest of Metro Vancouver for North Shore port terminals | Chung Chow

Developers of North Shore port infrastructure face the same transportation challenge as their residential housing counterparts: bridge congestion.

However, the challenge for the area’s port developers is shaping up to be far more complex. They have only one bridge and one lane across Burrard Inlet connecting the North Shore’s rail traffic to Metro Vancouver; housing and other developers have two bridges and nine lanes connecting them and their vehicles to the rest of the region.

Consider also that the Second Narrows rail bridge is out of commission five to six hours per day when it’s lifted to allow marine traffic to move through the narrows.

...

https://biv.com/article/2019/01/mult...ncrease-export

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Vancouver port development dealt difficult bridge hand

By Timothy Renshaw | January 14, 2019


The Second Narrows rail bridge is the sole rail link to the rest of Metro Vancouver for North Shore port terminals | Chung Chow

Developers of North Shore port infrastructure face the same transportation challenge as their residential housing counterparts: bridge congestion.

However, the challenge for the area’s port developers is shaping up to be far more complex. They have only one bridge and one lane across Burrard Inlet connecting the North Shore’s rail traffic to Metro Vancouver; housing and other developers have two bridges and nine lanes connecting them and their vehicles to the rest of the region.

Consider also that the Second Narrows rail bridge is out of commission five to six hours per day when it’s lifted to allow marine traffic to move through the narrows.

...

https://biv.com/article/2019/01/mult...ncrease-export

Maybe it's time to build a parallel bridge?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Maybe it's time to build a parallel bridge?

Don't forget that a parallel bridge will almost certainly require a parallel tunnel.

Thornton Tunnel