HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 5:56 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: 85 floors above Metro Vancouver
Posts: 6,413
As per the new slides the route is actually not 100 but 200 kilometers and would require five bridges and two tunnels. I cannot believe that would be under 3 billion dollars that they estimate. That is crazy long and would only solve problem for Powell River, leaving Lower Sunshine Coast as is.

Interesting data on fjord depths on those slides. Many options call for floating bridges.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 9:45 AM
Aroundtheworld Aroundtheworld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 195
With the Massey Bridge, Site C Dam and now this, I find it hard to fathom how the province is so bent on building costly infrastructure we don't need (or at least not at this scale). Are construction companies really that big a special interest group from them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 9:54 AM
Pinion's Avatar
Pinion Pinion is offline
Lower Lonsdale YIMBY
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: City of North Vancouver
Posts: 4,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld View Post
With the Massey Bridge, Site C Dam and now this, I find it hard to fathom how the province is so bent on building costly infrastructure we don't need (or at least not at this scale). Are construction companies really that big a special interest group from them?
I thought this was all about Clark's Woodfibre LNG dreams. Massey is about port goods movement (same with Port Mann and SFPR).

Video Link


A bridge to Sunshine coast would be neat but it couldn't be any less direct than the Anvil island option or else it's kinda pointless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 10:31 AM
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
SUSPENDED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 11,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld View Post
With the Massey Bridge, Site C Dam and now this, I find it hard to fathom how the province is so bent on building costly infrastructure we don't need (or at least not at this scale). Are construction companies really that big a special interest group from them?
Don't worry, Vision Vancouver's plan to ban the use of LNG within city limits will legitimize the need for Site C, plus several more.

A fixed link to the Sunshine Coast is a good idea. Most European countries would have built such a link there by now. It will only be a 2 lane bridge, so not a freeway.

Agreed that it needs to be at least as direct as Anvil Island to be worth the investment.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 10:50 AM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
As per the new slides the route is actually not 100 but 200 kilometers and would require five bridges and two tunnels. I cannot believe that would be under 3 billion dollars that they estimate. That is crazy long and would only solve problem for Powell River, leaving Lower Sunshine Coast as is.

Interesting data on fjord depths on those slides. Many options call for floating bridges.
I don't disagree with you, but...

The Powell River road has the added benefit of opening up a lot of back country. It would simplify resource extraction, open up a lot of valleys and coastline to power projects, create new camping opportunities, and maybe open a mountain or 2 to skiing.

There is also potential to create new farmland along the Squamish and other river valleys that have been unpractical to settle (seriously, how come we don't settle new towns anymore? What was the date where we were like, yep, that's all we need, lets just cram everyone into Vancouver?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld View Post
With the Massey Bridge, Site C Dam and now this, I find it hard to fathom how the province is so bent on building costly infrastructure we don't need (or at least not at this scale). Are construction companies really that big a special interest group from them?
Again, I don't disagree, but...

The ferry service isn't exactly free to run. Over 100 years it would probably still be cheaper to run the ferry service, but the ferry service also sets a limit on the economic development level of the Sunshine Coast. So theoretically, you would be offsetting a chuck of the cost of such a link by the increase in the local economies you would see.

But yeah, the question is do we have that much money to spend upfront to pay off later, and even if we did, would it pay off?

That's why I'm now a bit curious about the Powell River road option. It might be longer, more expensive, and not solve the ferry problem, but so little of the coastline of the Mainland is accessible today. What kind of economic opportunities would become available by building a new road through some scenic river valleys?

We are so concerned about protecting what we have in the ALR in the lower mainland, maybe we should explore adding to it in non-accessed areas of the province.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 12:05 PM
Kisai Kisai is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld View Post
With the Massey Bridge, Site C Dam and now this, I find it hard to fathom how the province is so bent on building costly infrastructure we don't need (or at least not at this scale). Are construction companies really that big a special interest group from them?
"We don't need" - Says who?

For the sake of argument, electricity demands will never just top out and go down, especially when the City of Vancouver makes asinine decisions about what energy sources to use for heating. Hydroelectric energy is also 10 times more expensive than thermal (eg coal/natural gas.) In fact all the energy demands on the Pacific Northwest energy grid can be directly tied to political meddling in California to discontinue use of thermal energy generation there because it has a net air-quality improvement for everyone who lives east. There are alternative energy sources (especially Geothermal) that don't generate carbon, but they do still generate green house gases (eg water vapor is the byproduct of all energy sources except wind and photovoltaic solar.) Hydroelectric dams impair fish and other wildlife ecosystems, but they are the most cost effective "green" energy because they can be built anywhere there is a valley that can be plugged. But they are not infinitely renewable (see the Hoover Dam) and need to be stopped and recharged if drained too quickly, which necessitates customers use other more expensive energy sources.

Since all of Vancouver's energy generation comes from inland BC, the real risk of having Burrard Thermal shutdown is that in the event of a major emergency where the transmission lines to Vancouver are cut, there is no alternative source for Metro Vancouver. The Inter-ties can't pull all of Vancouver's energy through Bonneville. In the likely event of a Major Earthquake, chances are those lines will not be available either.

Massey is about goods movement, good or bad, unless the province wants to tell CN and CP not to push goods through Port Metro, that will top out when all the ports reach their capacity. This is why Deltaport is expanding to support 55% more traffic. Centerm is also expanding by about the same, that's the one at Waterfront.

Which brings us to what could be the ultimate reason for building out infrastructure along the sunshine coast. Ultimately it will result in a fixed link to Vancouver Island. That's clearly always been the end-game since that idea gets floated every year by politicians. That is about goods movement as well. However the current plans only go to Powell River, where the only other Ferry route to the Island is. So let's say that this fixed link gets us to Powell River. That's a 90 minute ferry ride, currently serviced by only one ferry, every 3 hours or so. So if vehicle and goods traffic is moved to Powell River, that clears up congestion at Horseshoe Bay/Nanaimo.

If you've ever taken the ferry at Horseshoe Bay or Nanaimo by car, chances are you've been in a line that has backed up onto the highway or through downtown Nanaimo.

One might ask what's the logistical point of all of this however, wouldn't more energy/fuel be burned with vehicles going to Powell River instead of Tsawwassen? Wouldn't it be more expensive? Well the ferry doesn't operate 24 hours. So the only real immediate improvement is emergency services on the Sunshine coast. What would make more sense is a fixed rail link to Vancouver Island's North/West coast, as that would bypass having to navigate the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the first place. You have to think 30 years ahead.

What you see here is the common theme of goods movement and emergency/safety improvements. If goods arrived at the Island in the first place, they wouldn't have to be trucked back to the Island from Vancouver via the ferry. Building this infrastructure just to get to Powell River alone doesn't make any sense since there is no time improvement versus the small capacity ferries.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 7:09 PM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,658
I tend to oppose any fixed link to sunshine coast. Would hate for those beautiful places to turn into commuter suburbs of Vancouver. All for improving and expanding the ferry system. Would be interesting to see the comparative life cycle environmental impact of the ferries vs the hundreds of millions of additional vehicle kms driven across a fixed link.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 7:36 PM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post
I tend to oppose any fixed link to sunshine coast. Would hate for those beautiful places to turn into commuter suburbs of Vancouver. All for improving and expanding the ferry system. Would be interesting to see the comparative life cycle environmental impact of the ferries vs the hundreds of millions of additional vehicle kms driven across a fixed link.
The trade-off is Vancouver has a housing crunch. We need to make those places more accessible to give people options for living in the region without it being the high cost parts of Metro Vancouver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 7:39 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post
I tend to oppose any fixed link to sunshine coast. Would hate for those beautiful places to turn into commuter suburbs of Vancouver. All for improving and expanding the ferry system. Would be interesting to see the comparative life cycle environmental impact of the ferries vs the hundreds of millions of additional vehicle kms driven across a fixed link.
Especially when there's other things we could be spending $3+ billion on. In what kind of parallel universe does it make sense for a Bridge to Nowhere for a few hundred vacation homes take precedence over Skytrain lines for a few million riders?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 7:42 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 6,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post
I tend to oppose any fixed link to sunshine coast. Would hate for those beautiful places to turn into commuter suburbs of Vancouver. All for improving and expanding the ferry system. Would be interesting to see the comparative life cycle environmental impact of the ferries vs the hundreds of millions of additional vehicle kms driven across a fixed link.
And how exactly is your attitude any different from the "grey-haired NIMBYs" you and others like to criticize when they seek to preserve their beautiful leafy neighbourhoods?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 8:11 PM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,658
You paint with very broad strokes. Urbanizing the sunshine coast vs intensification of already-urban areas are very different. Only one of them is good for the environment.

I'm very alarmed about the city's shrinking tree canopy and believe that ALL mature trees in ALL development must be retained. But those rotting west-side bungalows you want to preserve so badly (as if you can afford them if only those pesky immigrants stop replacing them with limestone mansions lmao ) aren't worth the land they're sitting on. I rather see Evelyn Drive type development up to 6 stories in as much of the city as possible, rather than towers on fat podiums.

And there's no reason why smaller towns can't take on a similar urban form to minimize their footprint on nature.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 8:33 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster View Post
Much of the road is already there. Granted it is logging road, and yes it would still be very exspensive, but there is road from powell river all the way to the top of jervis inlet. It ends right at the base of mount alfred. I believe its the same coming from squamish. There is not really that much distance between the ends of each road (I used to know the exact amount). I believe its something like 15 to 20 km of new road they would need to build. Less if they incorporate a tunnel.

I do agree though would still be more money then anyone would be willing to spend.
The selling point for the Powell river road is opening up more of the area to resource extraction etc. The Anvil bridge option makes sense but the problem is the spans that would be 1.5+ km's. Anyways a fixed link will be built either overland from Squamish, to Powell river or over Anvil island which avoids all the areas with citizens and island trust funds etc.

My preferred option would have been a fixed link over Gambier island (there is a underwater ridge in-between that would allow a bridge with two 1.5km spans and the third bridge would also be under 1.5 km's. But that would mean a bridge infront of Lions Bay and through the island trust lands and that would be impossible to push through in today's political environment.

The next best thing is a fixed link to Gibsons via Anvil or Squamish and the completion of the new Sunshine Coast highway up towards Sechelt, Halfmoon bay, Gardne Bay and eventually Egmont with a new bridge over to Nelson Island and on to Powerll river at some point in the future. That would open up some 150 km/s of gently sloping coast just north of Vancouver.

Also anyone who says a fixed link is not needed, or has been needed decades ago is not familiar with the area. I am on the Sunshine Coast at this point at-least once a month. The fixed link for economic reasons should have been built decades ago. It will pay for its self through increased economic activity over the next 100 + years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2016, 8:34 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,982
When I saw the price tag on these various options ranging from $1.5 billion to $3 billion I knew right there that this was more of a "future-looking" exercise. Like perhaps 50 years from now.

Much higher priorities such as twinning Hwy 1 from Kamloops to the AB border with an estimated price tag of ~$10 billion alone. For starters.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2016, 1:18 AM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
When I saw the price tag on these various options ranging from $1.5 billion to $3 billion I knew right there that this was more of a "future-looking" exercise. Like perhaps 50 years from now.

Much higher priorities such as twinning Hwy 1 from Kamloops to the AB border with an estimated price tag of ~$10 billion alone. For starters.
Any road/bridge built to the sunshine coast is certainly going to be a tolled route. Just about everything else built these days is tolled so why would this section be any different. Nothing is free..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2016, 3:29 AM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,271
Well, you have to pay to ride the two ferries so you should have to pay the bridge toll also.

If the Akashi Kaikyo bridge, the world's longest, has a 1,991m span, and the studied bridge to Powell river would have a 2,000+m span, that's massive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2016, 3:48 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainguy View Post
Any road/bridge built to the sunshine coast is certainly going to be a tolled route. Just about everything else built these days is tolled so why would this section be any different. Nothing is free..
Agreed and I also realize that. IMHO, both the population on the Sunshine Coast as well as the AADT on the Horseshoe Bay to Langdale ferry run currently do not warrant a highway replacement at $1.5 - $3 billion.

BTW, the 2015 AADT of the Horseshoe Bay to Langdale run is just a puny 2,903. Current ferry fare (1 car + 1 passenger) equates to about $70 one way. I suspect that any highway toll would be considerably much higher.

(I could work backwards on a 40-year asset life cycle + annualized maintenance + principal/interest amortization + applicable discount rate over same time frame for a rough tolling figure at outset but it's a time consuming exercise).

Ergo, I suspect that the existing Langdale ferry run is much more cost effective and cheaper for the consumer over the mid-term. It's akin to when MoTI conducted a study of a a crossing of the Georgia Strait to Van Isle. Huge tolling figure. Again, when the population of Van Isle increases by another million+ over the next 50 years it could potentially be feasible. But not over the mid-term.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2016, 4:24 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Agreed and I also realize that. IMHO, both the population on the Sunshine Coast as well as the AADT on the Horseshoe Bay to Langdale ferry run currently do not warrant a highway replacement at $1.5 - $3 billion.

BTW, the 2015 AADT of the Horseshoe Bay to Langdale run is just a puny 2,903. Current ferry fare (1 car + 1 passenger) equates to about $70 one way. I suspect that any highway toll would be considerably much higher.

(I could work backwards on a 40-year asset life cycle + annualized maintenance + principal/interest amortization + applicable discount rate over same time frame for a rough tolling figure at outset but it's a time consuming exercise).

Ergo, I suspect that the existing Langdale ferry run is much more cost effective and cheaper for the consumer over the mid-term. It's akin to when MoTI conducted a study of a a crossing of the Georgia Strait to Van Isle. Huge tolling figure. Again, when the population of Van Isle increases by another million+ over the next 50 years it could potentially be feasible. But not over the mid-term.
Its not about commuters today. Its about opening up the coast to economic development. There is a deep water port there hundreds of square km's of land ready to be developed and more. None of this can be utilized without a reliable fixed link. Its as simple as that. The 2 to 3 billion would pay or its self many times over in a short period of time through increased economic activity in the region that stretches for 150 km's north of downtown Vancouver and offers some of the best land in this province.

None of this has anything to do with current residents and everything to do with future economic activity.

Until a fixed link is built the region will have virtually zero economic growth and continue being a borderline drain on the rest of the province. The ferry chokes of the region.

Also the Horseshoe bay terminal needs some half a billion in upgrades and one of the main ferry runs will need to shit down for a considerable period of time. As it stands that means several years of the Nanaimo run operating only out of Tssawassen unless the Langdale run can be discontinued.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2016, 4:30 AM
Bdawe Bdawe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunrise
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
Its not about commuters today. Its about opening up the coast to economic development. There is a deep water port there hundreds of square km's of land ready to be developed and more. None of this can be utilized without a reliable fixed link. Its as simple as that. The 2 to 3 billion would pay or its self many times over in a short period of time through increased economic activity in the region that stretches for 150 km's north of downtown Vancouver and offers some of the best land in this province.

None of this has anything to do with current residents and everything to do with future economic activity.

Until a fixed link is built the region will have virtually zero economic growth and continue being a borderline drain on the rest of the province. The ferry chokes of the region.

Also the Horseshoe bay terminal needs some half a billion in upgrades and one of the main ferry runs will need to shit down for a considerable period of time. As it stands that means several years of the Nanaimo run operating only out of Tssawassen unless the Langdale run can be discontinued.
These sorts of claims require numbers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2016, 4:32 AM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Agreed and I also realize that. IMHO, both the population on the Sunshine Coast as well as the AADT on the Horseshoe Bay to Langdale ferry run currently do not warrant a highway replacement at $1.5 - $3 billion.

BTW, the 2015 AADT of the Horseshoe Bay to Langdale run is just a puny 2,903. Current ferry fare (1 car + 1 passenger) equates to about $70 one way. I suspect that any highway toll would be considerably much higher.

(I could work backwards on a 40-year asset life cycle + annualized maintenance + principal/interest amortization + applicable discount rate over same time frame for a rough tolling figure at outset but it's a time consuming exercise).

Ergo, I suspect that the existing Langdale ferry run is much more cost effective and cheaper for the consumer over the mid-term. It's akin to when MoTI conducted a study of a a crossing of the Georgia Strait to Van Isle. Huge tolling figure. Again, when the population of Van Isle increases by another million+ over the next 50 years it could potentially be feasible. But not over the mid-term.
It's not just the tolls that preclude a link to Vancouver Island, but technology itself. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/tr...and/fixed-link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2016, 4:53 AM
Conrad Yablonski Conrad Yablonski is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster View Post
Much of the road is already there. Granted it is logging road, and yes it would still be very exspensive, but there is road from powell river all the way to the top of jervis inlet. It ends right at the base of mount alfred. I believe its the same coming from squamish. There is not really that much distance between the ends of each road (I used to know the exact amount). I believe its something like 15 to 20 km of new road they would need to build. Less if they incorporate a tunnel.

I do agree though would still be more money then anyone would be willing to spend.
Yes I've travelled much of the route from Squamish to Jervis Inlet in an ordinary half ton truck-going slowly but I was surprised how far I got it was late winter so I turned around before it got dark.
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 4:22 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.