Port of Vancouver Discussion - Page 4

Prometheus · #61 Posted **Apr 21, 2010, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zassk

^ "Bad" is a word that needs context. We are getting less ships but larger ships, therefore we need less berths. But the number of passengers is actually slightly greater.

Which raises an interesting issue. What benefits Vancouver more economically? More ships but less passengers, or more passengers but less ships?

Gordon · #62 Posted **Apr 21, 2010, 10:18 PM**

The Alaska market lost 4 ships for this season due to various new taxes in Alaska. unfortuantely Vancouver took a massive hit.

We gain 2 ships next year.

Canada Place has as many berths(3) as both terminals in seattle do.

jlousa · #63 Posted **Apr 22, 2010, 1:45 AM**

Canada Place has 3 berths but can handle 4 ships, as the east berth can handle 2 ships and has done so before, so long as they aren't the large ones.

The port would actually be better served to focus completely on Canada Place and convert Ballantyne completely to industrial use.

amor de cosmos · #64 Posted **Jul 15, 2010, 11:48 PM**

Quote:

VANCOUVER — The Honourable Stockwell Day, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, today marked the start of construction on the Lynn Creek Rail Bridge and Brooksbank Avenue Underpass project in North Vancouver, B.C. This federal investment of over $21 million will improve access to ports and railways, and help to seize job creation opportunities with a skilled workforce as we strengthen our trading connections overseas.

This project, delivered through Port Metro Vancouver, involves building a new bridge to carry eight new rail lines to widen the existing port rail corridor, and expanding the Brooksbank Avenue underpass. These expansions will improve railway access to and from Port Metro Vancouver’s Neptune and Lynnterm West terminals in North Vancouver.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/re...h085e-6032.htm

logan5 · #65 Posted **Jan 16, 2012, 12:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

Haha yeah, because it's not like the port is critical to the local and national economy or anything. We should build more condos and add a ferris wheel or two.

The ports train and truck traffic would move more efficiently outside of the densely populated inner city. Prince Rupert has a lot of capacity potential, as well as Delta Port, which is building Terminal 2, which would most likely give us more capacity than we actually need. Port Metro owns a huge piece of land along the Fraser in South Richmond that could be developed as a major port once the Massey tunnel is replaced by a bridge. So there are options.

In 20 years or so, developable land will be very scarce in the Metro Core, where high density neighborhoods are most important. I can't see why a deal couldn't be brokered to relocate at least Centerm in order to free up land located 500 meters from Downtown Vancouver, as well as the associated industrial land.

logan5 · #66 Posted **Jan 16, 2012, 2:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

OK. Pretty simple really:

Why would anybody in their right mind want to see a huge economic generator, with billions of $ in existing infrastructure moved out what is one of the best natural harbours on the west coast of North America in favour of condos?

A key part of the ports operation are the rail and road infrastructure that is connected to them. Deltaport could provide better infrastructure to keep container traffic moving more freely, be it by road or rail.

You would have to admit that the location of Centerm and Vanterm is less than ideal and that land would be better suited for high density residential, maybe not right now, but certainly 20 years down the road when land is scarce.

Jebby · #67 Posted **Jan 16, 2012, 3:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

A key part of the ports operation are the rail and road infrastructure that is connected to them. Deltaport could provide better infrastructure to keep container traffic moving more freely, be it by road or rail.

You would have to admit that the location of Centerm and Vanterm is less than ideal and that land would be better suited for high density residential, maybe not right now, but certainly 20 years down the road when land is scarce.

Land will not be scarce 20 years from now, not even 40 or 60 years down the road. Density in the vicinity of the downtown core can easily be increased to meet demand, not to mention the huge amount of underutilized land in the false creek flats and the rest of the city (the vast majority being single family houses). There is no need to get rid of the port to build condos.

The rail and road infrastructure does need to be improved though and it would be nice to see a rail and truck tunnel built to alleviate congestion on surface routes to the port.

fredinno · #68 Posted **Jan 21, 2012, 3:31 PM**

^^ agree so much...
We could build a ferry in Vancouver Harbor though...we have space for that, right?

red-paladin · #69 Posted **Jan 21, 2012, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

^^ agree so much...
We could build a ferry in Vancouver Harbor though...we have space for that, right?

We have an empty dock adjacent to the seabus terminal if that's what you mean.

fredinno · #70 Posted **Jan 21, 2012, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

We have an empty dock adjacent to the seabus terminal if that's what you mean.

I mean a road & passenger ferry that can carry buses.

I don't think the empty terminal would be big enough though...

officedweller · #71 Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 12:05 AM**

The last ferries (cats) were built in North Van just east of Lonsdale. The 1960s vintage BC Ferries were built and launched in North Van - Versatile Shipyards(?) - not sure if that has been redeveloped though.

fredinno · #72 Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 3:55 PM**

^ it probably has to...
Can you give me map of location?

officedweller · #73 Posted **Jan 23, 2012, 10:38 PM**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrard_Dry_Dock

Note the BC Ferries listed.

Could be the Pinnacle sites...

officedweller · #74 Posted **Jan 23, 2012, 11:49 PM**

From the Courier:

Quote:

New traffic regulations target port-bound trucks
Truck speed limit imposed on parts of Nanaimo and Renfrew streets
By Naoibh O'Connor, Vancouver Courier
January 20, 2012

A Port Metro Vancouver pilot project designed to ensure container trucks travel along Clark Drive and east along Hastings Street to Highway 1 as their route into the port ends Jan. 25, but the city is imposing new traffic regulations to ensure trucks stick to the new route.

Port-destined container trucks won't be able to make right turns from Knight Street onto 41st Avenue or from Clark Drive onto Broadway, and they won't be able to make left turns off of Broadway onto Nanaimo or Renfrew streets.

A truck speed limit of 30 km/hr is also being imposed on Nanaimo and Renfrew streets between Broadway and McGill streets

...

Dobrovolny noted even the turn restrictions could be a temporary measure once 2014 arrives and the port completes major road construction projects on its land.

"Once they complete those projects, they've indicated the Clark Drive gate would re-open and at that time the trucks would just stay on Clark Drive and drive straight onto port property. That's the best solution. It reduces the amount of travel time on city streets," he said.

Read more: http://www.vancourier.com/traffic+re...#ixzz1kKPZhum8

fredinno · #75 Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 12:30 AM**

We could use the false creek grounds for the ferry too...

jlousa · #76 Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 1:35 AM**

Not for a car ferry we couldn't, neither the bridges nor is the depth enough, perhaps west of the Burrard bridge but then it's not False Creek Anymore.

aberdeen5698 · #77 Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 3:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

From the Courier:

Thanks for posting that. I hope they really do re-open the Clarke entrance to the port - they need to be able to accept trucks there because for trucks arriving from the south (Roberts Bank, US etc.) forcing them to leave the Knight/Clarke corridor makes no sense at all.

I'm a bit skeptical, though. If the plans they've posted have somehow increased the inbound capacity for processing trucks arriving at Clarke Drive, I missed it.

fredinno · #78 Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 3:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Not for a car ferry we couldn't, neither the bridges nor is the depth enough, perhaps west of the Burrard bridge but then it's not False Creek Anymore.

So you're saying we should build it on english bay...

jlousa · #79 Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 4:01 AM**

I don't think we should build a car ferry period within Vancouver. I'm just saying it could not happen in False Creek.

I'm not even sure leaving from d/t Vancouver would get you to Nanaimo of Victoria quicker then driving to and leaving from the existing terminals, for foot passengers it could be a different story.

logan5 · #80 Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 5:47 AM**

I know foot passenger service from Vancouver Island right into Downtown Vancouver has been tried before and failed. I'm not sure how fast the boats were back then, but todays ferries can travel at 83 km/h, which would get you from Nanaimo to D/T Vancouver in around 45 minutes and from Victoria to D/T Vancouver in around 1 hour and 15 minutes. A B.C. ferry takes 1 hour 35 minutes to get from Nanaimo to Horseshoe Bay plus another hour or so to load/unload and drive to D/T Vancouver, for a total of 2 hours and 35 minutes. A time savings of close to 2 hours. Probably a similar time savings for the Victoria route as well. Maybe it's time to give it another shot.