Port of Vancouver Discussion

[s211]

Originally Posted by Millennium2002

There is a reaction thread on reddit about this article and it appears that no one over there is really concerned about this... And yet, personally seeing the Seattle numbers outpace Vancouver is kind of disconcerting for some reason.

Why are they closing Ballentine?

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Millennium2002

What do people think about this?

As someone within the industry;

Vancouver will always have it's place within the industry being able to run one-way Alaska cruises. Due to the US's Jones Act. Alaska cruises from Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles are all round trip only.

Would a fourth berth expansion to Canada Place be possible? The angle of the terminal and the proximity to Centerm (especially with the westward expansion) most likely means a major reconfiguration would be needed. I see that as the most likely scenario, at least as the first step.

The other problem of clearance under the LGB has no clear solution. The current classes of ships serving Vancouver only have 10 years, maybe 15 at the most, years left in mainline service. All newer classes will not clear the LGB. Without raising the bridge deck we could see Vancouver fall to Seattle with mainline service while maintaining smaller luxury lines.
Perhaps some lines will order new builds in the 100,000 tonne range (most current new builds are in the 150,000-170,000 tonne range) but with the Panama Canal expansion there is a increased reason to maintain this size within the fleet.

Originally Posted by s211

Why are they closing Ballentine?

For Centerm's expansion. The building itself will be replaced with the new operations/administration facility with the heritage facade retained.

[LeftCoaster]

There are only 3 cruise ships at Canada Place on a very limited number of days. Don't know why they are concerned about capacity already?

[madog222]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

There are only 3 cruise ships at Canada Place on a very limited number of days. Don't know why they are concerned about capacity already?

Part of the problem is that scheduling is complex. Alaskan ports are full most days with ships from Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. On occasion we will be at anchor in port with four berths in use. There will never be a time when 3 ships are berthed at Canada Place every day, there just isn't the room in Alaska.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

There are only 3 cruise ships at Canada Place on a very limited number of days. Don't know why they are concerned about capacity already?

Excuse me, but I had thought the real problem was the SIZE of the ships, not necessarily the frequency. It seems the new cruise ships they are building will be simply too large to berth.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by madog222

There will never be a time when 3 ships are berthed at Canada Place every day, there just isn't the room in Alaska.

Then there's no point in expanding berthing capacity here if the bottleneck is at the other end.

[jollyburger]

It will be fun to see how they try to build a new cruise ship terminal and where.

The Port of Vancouver says it's mulling plans for a future facility and is in talks with tourism associations and governments.

"There's not a bunch of idle locations around," said Peter Xotta, the port's vice-president of planning and operations.

"This is something that's going to take a fair amount of due diligence."

Xotta said it was too early to speculate about possible locations.

The port has also heard concerns from the cruise sector about the height limitation posed by the Lion's Gate Bridge.

There's roughly a 60-metre distance between the water and the lowest part of the bridge at its centre point, which can change depending on the tide.

The Explorer of the Seas ship from Royal Caribbean International has had to bypass Vancouver for Victoria because the ship is too big.

"What we've done over the last number of years is establish very clear and much more strict guidelines for vessel transiting," Xotta said.

"Particularly those vessels that might approach what we call the safety margin of clearance, or in this case, below the bridge deck."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...mand-1.4243518

[Xrayal]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It will be fun to see how they try to build a new cruise ship terminal and where.
From the CBC article:
"Xotta said it was too early to speculate about possible locations."

Just be cause they are not willing to speculate doesn't mean we can't.
If we rule out anything past the Lion Gate Bridge due to height restrictions at 60 meters clearance that removes a lot of options. Plus the Alex Fraser Bridge has a lower clearance at 55 meters above river levels according to wiki, which further removes options.

Leaving me with my guess. Sea Island? Either somewhere along side the south terminal might be the lost logical place. Otherwise if the Fraser river is navigable for these new larger ships possibly tucked in by McArthurglen outlet mall. At least it will be closer to an existing SkyTrain station. Anyone else have any thoughts or guesses?

[Tetsuo]

Wreck beach Welcome to Vancouver cruise ship goers.

Sea Island is the closest that could work, but would Swiwash (sic) Island get it the way? Also would the cruise ships size/height interfere with Air traffic.

Otherwise with the rumors of reduced BC ferry service at Horseshoe, could that be used, probably too far ?

What are the chances of US lawmakers amending the Jones Act?

Ron.

[GlassCity]

I don't know the first thing about cruise ships, the industry or anything connected to it, but two areas I would imagine could be cool would be Steveston and White Rock. Both seem easily reachable and have pleasant centres right on the water that could easily turn into the tourist-trap shop scene that Gastown is.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't know the first thing about cruise ships, the industry or anything connected to it, but two areas I would imagine could be cool would be Steveston and White Rock. Both seem easily reachable and have pleasant centres right on the water that could easily turn into the tourist-trap shop scene that Gastown is.

I would think the ocean depth there would be way too shallow. It's also nowhere near downtown Vancouver/the mountains where tourists want to go. Gastown is only one of many destinations around there.

It really needs to be in Burrard Inlet somewhere, since there's no chance of Point Grey or West Van stepping up to the plate. Yet another reason to replace Lions Gate.

[Tetsuo]

How deep is the area around False Creek English Bay? Redevelopment of the Kitsilano FN lands + Molson, tied in with a terminal around the existing Burrard Civic Marina/Coast Guard.

Should this go in the transit fantasies

Ron.

[jlousa]

I'm fairly certain there is no serious consideration being taken to relocate at this time. The existing clearance doesn't really pose an issue to all but the very largest of cruise ships. As far as I know there is only 1 ship of that size on the Alaska run and no others scheduled. Yes there are larger ships being built but we aren't the target route for them. The Alaskan run ships have always tended to be a notch or two behind the flagships.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Pinion

It really needs to be in Burrard Inlet somewhere, since there's no chance of Point Grey or West Van stepping up to the plate. Yet another reason to replace Lions Gate.

Not a joke, but I believe that there's an agreement out there somewhere that supposedly dictates closure (and no replacement) of the Lions Gate at some point not so far in the distant future. I seem to recall it being a creation between the Van Parks Board, the City and the Province last time the bridge was rehabbed.

I could be hallucinating but that story is stamped on my brain for some reason. Happy to be proven wrong.

(And I'm not trying to play the "fake news" game here.)

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by s211

Not a joke, but I believe that there's an agreement out there somewhere that supposedly dictates closure (and no replacement) of the Lions Gate at some point not so far in the distant future. I seem to recall it being a creation between the Van Parks Board, the City and the Province last time the bridge was rehabbed.

I could be hallucinating but that story is stamped on my brain for some reason. Happy to be proven wrong.

(And I'm not trying to play the "fake news" game here.)

This has been proven to be false over and over and was predicated on a new third crossing being built.

The city of Vancouver, Park Board and provincial government moved Friday to reassure commuters that there are no plans to close down the Lions Gate Bridge to private cars and trucks by 2030.

The statements followed media reports that the Park Board would decommission the bridge in 15 years, if a third crossing was built across the Burrard Inlet, as per an agreement signed in 2000 with the city, province, TransLink and ICBC.

But Park Board general manager Malcolm Bromley said while the proposal had been included in a “term sheet” signed by the five organizations, it didn’t make it into the final contract.

...

“It didn’t make it into any legal agreement,” Bromley said. “There are no plans, there is no deal. Both the mayor and the Park Board have no appetite to do that.”

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Lio...831/story.html

[s211]

Originally Posted by Pinion

This has been proven to be false over and over and was predicated on a new third crossing being built.



http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Lio...831/story.html

Cool! Thanks for clarifying that for myself (and the forum). I appreciate the information.

And yet the story drives home how disconnected from reality the Parks Board is: "The pitch was considered a trade-off to cut down 47 trees and widen the Stanley Park Causeway as part of a $15-million list of safety improvements." Seriously: cut down 47 trees? Sure, but in return we get to shut the f***er down.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by s211

And yet the story drives home how disconnected from reality the Parks Board is: "The pitch was considered a trade-off to cut down 47 trees and widen the Stanley Park Causeway as part of a $15-million list of safety improvements." Seriously: cut down 47 trees? Sure, but in return we get to shut the f***er down.

You can't blame them for trying, IMHO. Of course it was never going to fly, but their job is to protect the park, and that's what they were trying to do. It's not their role to arbitrate between the park and other interests.

[Pinion]

If they want to protect the park they should be advocating for a six lane tunnel/bridge combo to stop cars from idling in the causeway all day.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Pinion

If they want to protect the park they should be advocating for a six lane tunnel/bridge combo to stop cars from idling in the causeway all day.

they would go for a 3 lane, bi-level bridge with a tunnel for the lower lanes under the causeway. that way it keeps the same footprint but doubles the capacity and improves safety and ends the issue of head on collisions.

[casper]

The Victoria Harbor Authority is also looking a building a new cruse ship terminal capable of being a home port.

The current terminal is used by ships during a cruise. That provides limited capability to provision the ship. A home port is where most of the passengers leave or join the cruise and where the ship is provisioned with food and other supplies. That usually means Seattle or Vancouver.

The busy time in Vancouver is at the start of the season and the end of the season over one or two weekends. This is mostly because the ships that home port in Seattle need to head back to California and the panama canal to spend the winter in the Caribbean. They can't legally sell passage from Seattle to California since all the ships operate as foreign flaged ships. They need to do a short cruise to get to Vancouver (or Victoria) and then operate a separate cruise from Canada to California.

What would make an interesting and low cost location for a cruise terminal is the Tawassin terminal. It is already setup to handle large volumes of vehicle traffic and passangers. It would need to be modified (expanded) with the correct type of piers on handle the cruise ships.