HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1061  
Old Posted May 23, 2015, 11:37 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post

Port wants tall Massey Bridge to accomodate LNG tankers
Taller bridge would mean higher costs, a more challenging design and a steeper grade. -
Jeff Nagel / Black Press
May 21, 2015 11:23 AM

...

As of mid-2014, port officials were proposing the Massey Bridge be designed with an "air draft" – the clearance for a ship between the water line and the bottom of the bridge deck – of about 65 metres. That's significantly more than the 57 metres initially outlined by the province.
...
A month later, in a July email to his staff, Port Metro Vancouver CEO Robin Silvester asked: "What is the air draft of the largest length LNG vessel that we could imagine in the river?"

Port marine operations director Chris Wellstood responded a 63-metre air draft would be enough for "the larger part of the world's LNG fleet" – tankers up to 320 metres long – to pass under the new bridge and head up the Fraser.

The largest LNG tankers, carrying 267,000 cubic meters of liquefied natural gas, require 64.4 metres of air draft, while the average LNG tanker with 142,000 cubic metre capacity needs about 50 metres overhead clearance, according to a chart Wellstood included.

Port Metro Vancouver planning and operations vice-president Peter Xotta said discussions about the bridge height are "ongoing" with the province, adding he expects the final decision will be close to 60 metres, but less than the port's preferred 65 metres.

http://www.richmondreview.com/news/p...kers-1.1942899


http://www.richmondreview.com/news/p...kers-1.1942899
Let's step back and examine this issue a bit more. The only project requiring LNG tankers along the Fraser River is the proposed WestPac Midstream LNG facility at Delta's Tilbury.

As an aside, the WestPac Midstream marine loading facility will be near Fortis BC's existing pipeline, which lies adjacent to their current LNG storage facility and Fortis is currently expanding that storage facility.

BTW, WesPac Midstream is a proposed small niche LNG facility with all infrastructure nearby (Fortis pipeline/LNG storage facility in place). WestPac Midstream also has a long-term supply agreement with Hawaiian Electric for 800,000 tons/annum commencing mid-2017.

In that regard, WesPac Midstream will only utilize relatively smaller, 65,000 m3 LNG carriers. Even container ships currently operating on the Fraser River have a higher air draft.

http://wespac.com/wp-content/uploads...2014-09-02.pdf

Much larger LNG carriers are currently extant. Even the world's largest LNG carriers (Q-Flex/Q-Max classes) will not be able to traverse the new, expanded Panama Canal.

Taking all of the foregoing into account, I am left scratching my head why Port Metro Vancouver is requesting a 65 metre air draft (compared to proposed MOTI's 57 metre air draft). WestPac Midstream apparently won't need that air draft according to their own proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1062  
Old Posted May 24, 2015, 12:28 AM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
...I am left scratching my head why Port Metro Vancouver is requesting a 65 metre air draft (compared to proposed MOTI's 57 metre air draft). WestPac Midstream apparently won't need that air draft according to their own proposal.
Well, the bridge is going to be in place for 50 years or more. The Port would be abrogating its responsibility not to ask for as high a clearance as it can get away with. It's the government's job to weigh whether the potential "benefits" are worth the extra cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1063  
Old Posted May 25, 2015, 2:27 AM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
........
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
I wonder what the cost difference is for the taller bridge.

The solution is easy though... just toll the ships.
Pretty such ships already pay huge sums in docking fees. Plus all the cash they infuse into the local economy through all the services they pay for while in port.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1064  
Old Posted May 25, 2015, 2:37 AM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
Pretty such ships already pay huge sums in docking fees. Plus all the cash they infuse into the local economy through all the services they pay for while in port.
Do you think it's fair that drivers pay a higher toll for a future bridge because of the extra cost? The ships are already getting a 57m bridge for no direct cost to them.

Sounds like corporate welfare to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1065  
Old Posted May 25, 2015, 5:11 AM
Henbo Henbo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 178
Those docking fees and the services they pay for would be diffused throughout the economy providing a higher income to some of the residents who use the bridge. Well other residents won't benefit and still be subject to a higher toll, the extra income to the region would be larger then the higher toll.

Side note: And wouldn't a higher toll just further reduce the chances for sprawl?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1066  
Old Posted May 25, 2015, 1:18 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henbo View Post
Those docking fees and the services they pay for would be diffused throughout the economy providing a higher income to some of the residents who use the bridge. Well other residents won't benefit and still be subject to a higher toll, the extra income to the region would be larger then the higher toll.

Side note: And wouldn't a higher toll just further reduce the chances for sprawl?
That's a false argument.

I spend all of my income on local goods and services that help the economy in my area... Why do I even have to pay income tax?

I like tolls because it means those who use and directly benefit from the major spending are paying for it. In this case, that would be drivers and those now able to make better commercial use of the Fraser.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1067  
Old Posted May 25, 2015, 7:17 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
........
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
That's a false argument.

I spend all of my income on local goods and services that help the economy in my area... Why do I even have to pay income tax?
You shouldn't have to, but that's a topic for a different debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
I like tolls because it means those who use and directly benefit from the major spending are paying for it. In this case, that would be drivers and those now able to make better commercial use of the Fraser.
I agree. Every new bridge/tunnel/highway should be tolled until capital costs are recouped. Then the toll should be lowered to provide enough for maintenance as well as a fund for major repairs/future expansions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1068  
Old Posted May 25, 2015, 8:37 PM
officedweller officedweller is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,232
The Vancouver Sun article said that the Port gave "no comment" about adding to funding.

However, News1130 had a different quite that suggested the Port may contribute.
The Port is probably just establishing its negotiating position.

Quote:
The province says the extra costs associated with a higher bridge have not been determined yet and Xotta wouldn’t give any figures either.

“We have not had a discussion about contribution of funding. We expect the province may be engaging with senior levels of government over those discussions and may approach us. We are open to those conversations if that comes about,” he says.
http://www.news1130.com/2015/05/22/p...ld-cover-cost/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1069  
Old Posted May 27, 2015, 7:59 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Well, the bridge is going to be in place for 50 years or more. The Port would be abrogating its responsibility not to ask for as high a clearance as it can get away with. It's the government's job to weigh whether the potential "benefits" are worth the extra cost.
Thinking that far ahead for the Fraser river might be a little difficult due to all the variables. It doesn't make a lot of sense to spend what could be quite a bit of extra money (the redesign of the Steveston Highway interchange would be insane if the bridge were much taller) on just a maybe. Other factors could come into play too, like what will be the sea level over the next 50 years. Or will global warming lower the river level making it a hazard to navigate. How much extra pollution would be created by longer steeper grades on the bridge approaches, and what affect would that have on traffic models? Will there even be an LNG export industry in the future?

It might make a lot more sense to move the pipeline to another port if the alternative is designing an impractical and expensive bridge to accommodate a maybe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1070  
Old Posted May 27, 2015, 11:29 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
Thinking that far ahead for the Fraser river might be a little difficult due to all the variables. It doesn't make a lot of sense to spend what could be quite a bit of extra money (the redesign of the Steveston Highway interchange would be insane if the bridge were much taller) on just a maybe.
I don't disagree with that - I was just explaining that it's the Port's role to ask for as much as they think they can get away with. The best way to "keep them honest" is to ask them to pay for whatever extra costs are incurred.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1071  
Old Posted May 28, 2015, 7:26 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
Or will global warming lower the river level making it a hazard to navigate.
The Fraser is tidal up to about Mission, so as ocean levels rise, that gets pushed further upstream. That means that the river level will rise for every municipality downstream of Mission, so global warming will make the Fraser easier to navigate (assuming the riverbed doesn't rise as well).

Well, it also makes the height of bridges above the river lower, so I guess in some sense global warming makes the Fraser more difficult to navigate that way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1072  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2015, 8:07 PM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 593
http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/b...arer-1.1977475
Jessica Kerr / Delta Optimist
June 24, 2015 12:00 AM

While the final design has yet to be determined, Pam Ryan, director of planning for the project, told the South Delta Probus Club last week that while the bridge will be built over the tunnel, all existing roadways will remain open during construction, including the River Road exit ramp.

The 10-lane bridge will be built to the same height as the Alex Fraser Bridge - 57 metres.

On the bridge there will be three lanes each way for regular traffic, one each way for transit, and one lane each way for slow moving vehicles. Rapid transit may be incorporated later on an additional bridge level. Pedestrian and cyclists will be accommodated, likely on a pathway outside the bridge roadway.

Ryan said that 60 per cent of traffic coming from south of the river is going into Richmond, not Vancouver, and daily traffic volumes on the Oak Street Bridge have declined.

The bridge construction will also include the widening of Highway 99 to extend the existing HOV/transit lane, as well as the replacement of the Steveston and Highway 17A interchanges.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1073  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2015, 8:22 PM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by makr3trkr View Post
http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/b...arer-1.1977475
Jessica Kerr / Delta Optimist
June 24, 2015 12:00 AM
Ryan said that 60 per cent of traffic coming from south of the river is going into Richmond, not Vancouver, and daily traffic volumes on the Oak Street Bridge have declined.
Really? I find that rather hard to believe ...... show me the stats, and I'll become a believer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1074  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2015, 8:36 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
........
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by makr3trkr View Post
Rapid transit may be incorporated later on an additional bridge level.
Where did we hear that before?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1075  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2015, 8:58 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
Really? I find that rather hard to believe ...... show me the stats, and I'll become a believer.
Here you go.

2010: 69100
2011: 68740
2012: 68150
2013: 67423
2014: 67376

So between 2010 and 2014 the average daily traffic volume has dropped by about 2.5%. You can find this, and more, at the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure's Traffic Data Program page.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1076  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2015, 9:00 PM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
Rapid transit isn't needed here anyway. The population isn't there in South Delta or South Surrey and there is so much farmland in between these population centres. Buses will do a more than adequate job of serving these areas for the foreseeable future. Build rapid transit where it's actually needed, and this is coming from someone living in South Delta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1077  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2015, 10:10 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,617
What will the opening day toll be?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1078  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2015, 10:25 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Great news that they will be taking the 10 lane approach. It will be enough for the next 100 years. 8 lanes might become congested when the population increases by 1 million. Just look at the new 8-lane Highway 1 and how full of cars it is every morning already now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1079  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2015, 11:15 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Great news that they will be taking the 10 lane approach. It will be enough for the next 100 years. 8 lanes might become congested when the population increases by 1 million. Just look at the new 8-lane Highway 1 and how full of cars it is every morning already now.
Of course, as populations have increased the traffic has decreased, from a peak of 85284 per day in 2005 to 79105 per day in 2014 [source]

The Golden Ears Bridge was drastically overbuilt. The Port Mann Bridge was drastically overbuilt. And now we're going to drastically overbuild the Massey Bridge? Meanwhile people will be pissed off at paying tolls to cross it, and those tolls will have to last longer than anticipated because traffic volumes won't hit projected targets (just like the GEB and PMB).

They should do the same thing they're planning with the Pattullo Bridge: don't build the biggest possible bridge from the start, but build a smaller bridge that can be easily expanded if the traffic volumes require it.

But I guess the difference is that this is a provincial bridge, and nobody really gives a shit about how much money they blow on over-building bridges, whereas TransLink is corrupt and wasteful and can't budget worth shit, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1080  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2015, 11:48 PM
Infrequent Poster Infrequent Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by makr3trkr View Post
http://www.delta-optimist.com/news/b...arer-1.1977475
Jessica Kerr / Delta Optimist
June 24, 2015 12:00 AM

While the final design has yet to be determined, Pam Ryan, director of planning for the project, told the South Delta Probus Club last week that while the bridge will be built over the tunnel, all existing roadways will remain open during construction, including the River Road exit ramp.

The 10-lane bridge will be built to the same height as the Alex Fraser Bridge - 57 metres.

On the bridge there will be three lanes each way for regular traffic, one each way for transit, and one lane each way for slow moving vehicles. Rapid transit may be incorporated later on an additional bridge level. Pedestrian and cyclists will be accommodated, likely on a pathway outside the bridge roadway.

Ryan said that 60 per cent of traffic coming from south of the river is going into Richmond, not Vancouver, and daily traffic volumes on the Oak Street Bridge have declined.

The bridge construction will also include the widening of Highway 99 to extend the existing HOV/transit lane, as well as the replacement of the Steveston and Highway 17A interchanges.
The part I bolded is giving me some problems. Does this mean the only upgrade to the rest of the highway, is going to be extended hov lanes? While this is great, I would feel more then a little disappointed if they didnt add at least one general purpose lane in each direction as well. If they dont I fear it will be another 60 years before they do so.

Hopefully I am just misunderstanding what I read.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 2:04 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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