HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2017, 9:07 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
Why can't they build a pedestrian truss-bridge over the railway span? Since it's going to be above the tracks, it can span over the rotating section for the railway. Wouldn't it be cheaper than the original proposed bridge, especially since the existing railway bridge piers can be utilized?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2017, 2:51 AM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Why can't they build a pedestrian truss-bridge over the railway span? Since it's going to be above the tracks, it can span over the rotating section for the railway. Wouldn't it be cheaper than the original proposed bridge, especially since the existing railway bridge piers can be utilized?
Because the default state for that bridge is open to river traffic and closed to crossing trains. Unless a train is coming, they leave it open, which is exactly opposite to how you want a pedestrian bridge to operate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2017, 5:35 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainguy View Post
Typical politics... promise the sky and deliver nothing. Haven't we all heard endless promises at photo-ops and then reality hits. Show me the money first before your lips start moving!!!
It's because they have nothing to lose unless people realise that they're incompetent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 7:37 PM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 689
So here it starts. This could be a booming success or a complete flop. It depends if people are willing to pay to go from Q to Q.



NEW WESTMINSTER (NEWS 1130) – A new passenger ferry service is launching to connect two New Westminster communities separated by the Fraser River.

The Q to Q ferry, meaning Quayside to Queensborough, will start service on Friday. It’s just a pilot project for now, operating until September 24th and if it’s successful, it could be continued.

“Connecting the Queensborough and Quayside neighbourhoods has been a long-standing priority for the City of New Westminster,” says New Westminster Mayor Jonathan Coté. “The demonstration ferry service is a unique transportation alternative for accessing local businesses and destinations.”

For now, the ferry will operate on Friday evenings from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. and on Saturdays, Sundays and holiday Mondays between 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Fares are $2 for adults, $1 for seniors and kids between the ages of five and 16. Children under the age of five are free.

The five minute crossing runs from a dock below the Inn at the Quay near the River Market to the Port Royal public dock in Queensborough. It holds 40 passengers and four bikes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 10:06 PM
excel excel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,482
That came out of no where. Might have to head down and give it a test ride.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 10:08 PM
Shift Shift is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,944
Will definitely check this out. Have been wanting to visit Port Royal in Queensborough and this provides much easier access than driving. Fares are also very reasonable. Hope it's successful and becomes permanent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 10:16 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,408
If they really wanted to gauge interest they would run it on weekdays.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 10:42 PM
madog222 madog222 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,632
It's a trial run for a reason.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 2:40 AM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,029
I think the crossing was needed more for people who need quick access to the skytrain station to bypass the infrequent bus over the bridge. Especially during early morning rush hour and evening rush hour once Uni. students are back in school.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 2:57 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by madog222 View Post
It's a trial run for a reason.
Just saying even if they manage the numbers on the weekend, it would be a stretch to say that will work as a commuter type service. At least they didn't dump $200K into upgraded docks on the trial.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2018, 9:37 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronthecivil View Post
I seriously doubt you could get NAV Canada approval for a low bridge, as the sea route actually has a lot of traffic in it.

In fact, this is part of the downfall of a draw bridge, as it would often have to be set to open, limiting the ability to go under it.

As well, it would be VERY expensive.

The city and residents may not wish for a higher level bridge, (being a pedestrian bridge, it's not like you need a long run out, you can spiral up and down), and while they may not believe it, but it could be made pretty, and as such, it's really the only viable option.

If the city and residents don't want that, it's going to continue being nothing.

Even a ferry will have to yield to all the traffic, so I doubt it's in the cards either.
Why is there so much marine traffic? I thought the North Arm was too narrow for commercial freight traffic.

Also, couldn't they allow for increased density here and get the money from development fees? The bridge makes Point Royal pretty close to New West Station, after all, close enough to be part of New West Town Centre.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2018, 11:08 PM
rickvug rickvug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
Why is there so much marine traffic? I thought the North Arm was too narrow for commercial freight traffic.

Also, couldn't they allow for increased density here and get the money from development fees? The bridge makes Point Royal pretty close to New West Station, after all, close enough to be part of New West Town Centre.
Cost estimates jumped up from something like $15M to $40M but the money is only half of the issue. The other part is that the end product would actually be worse than originally envisioned because of the tall height requirement. The bridge would take longer to cross, would potentially be less accessible and be uglier. Worse product for 2x the cost. No thanks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2018, 1:07 AM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvug View Post
The bridge would take longer to cross, would potentially be less accessible and be uglier. Worse product for 2x the cost. No thanks.
I wonder if this might be another situation where a gondola would make sense...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2018, 1:51 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
I wonder if this might be another situation where a gondola would make sense...
Quote:
According to the report, the weekday ridership levels are stabilizing at 120 trips per day, on average, which is about one-third of summer levels. The ferry’s highest ridership is still on weekends and holidays, when there are about 300 trips daily during good weather and about 200 trips on rainy days, which is about one-half of summer levels.
https://www.newwestrecord.ca/news/ri...ths-1.23538158
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2018, 9:02 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvug View Post
Cost estimates jumped up from something like $15M to $40M but the money is only half of the issue. The other part is that the end product would actually be worse than originally envisioned because of the tall height requirement. The bridge would take longer to cross, would potentially be less accessible and be uglier. Worse product for 2x the cost. No thanks.
Well, they were probably thinking of putting the bridge there when they rezoned the area from industrial... Better do it now than later, when there's still land left.


And tall bridges can look nice, even if it cuts into your views (of what, exactly, though...?)


Though this is a subject of opinion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:59 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.