HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2016, 6:51 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by red-paladin View Post
A 1.1km cable stayed span would be tied with the longest cable stayed span on the planet. A 2.25km suspension span would be the longest ever built, it would have to be suspension as it's the only type of bridge that can have that long a span.
FYI, the non-navigation channels don't need much marine clearance, and the areas that haven't been carved by a glacier as significantly probably will be ok with a couple of intermediate bridge segments. This makes the minimum sized centre spans a lot smaller and the overall bridge cheaper.

Howe sound is the deepest fjord on the south coast, the other ones are less of a problem to figure out technically.

I think I may have also come up with a cost-effective way of spanning those long spans in some situations, so a span of over 2km may be very reasonable on some crossings. I need to find some structural bridge engineers to talk to about it though.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2016, 4:19 PM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
FYI, the non-navigation channels don't need much marine clearance, and the areas that haven't been carved by a glacier as significantly probably will be ok with a couple of intermediate bridge segments. This makes the minimum sized centre spans a lot smaller and the overall bridge cheaper.

Howe sound is the deepest fjord on the south coast, the other ones are less of a problem to figure out technically.

I think I may have also come up with a cost-effective way of spanning those long spans in some situations, so a span of over 2km may be very reasonable on some crossings. I need to find some structural bridge engineers to talk to about it though.
The province has already concluded that the channels are too deep to do anything other than suspension bridge spans, with a high clearance for the longest bridge.

• Bridge - Earls Cove to Nelson Island
- 1.5 km clear span suspension bridge
- 30+m vertical navigational clearance
- 170m deep channel


• Bridge - Nelson Island to Ahlstrom Point
- 2.0+ km clear span suspension bridge
- 50+m vertical navigational clearance
- 500m deep channel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2016, 8:09 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by red-paladin View Post
The province has already concluded that the channels are too deep to do anything other than suspension bridge spans, with a high clearance for the longest bridge.

• Bridge - Earls Cove to Nelson Island
- 1.5 km clear span suspension bridge
- 30+m vertical navigational clearance
- 170m deep channel


• Bridge - Nelson Island to Ahlstrom Point
- 2.0+ km clear span suspension bridge
- 50+m vertical navigational clearance
- 500m deep channel
But you see the islands just west of that RoW from Earls Cove to Nelson Island? That makes it 700m. Just put a tower there and on the mainland and and you've shrunk the span considerably.

There are also other narrow points
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2017, 7:47 PM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
I never did limit the crossing solution at Horseshoe Bay to a tunnel. I also said bridge. But be that as it may,...the Chinese are not scientifically dumb. They are engaged (as we communicate here) in numerous (difficult) engineering projects world wide. They are no less proficient than their Western engineering counterpart (who all have had their fair share of engineering failures). Notice that the Chinese have built a successful manned space program on their own? Has Canada?
The Canadian Space Program is connected to ESA (Europe), and partially to NASA. It's also not a fair comparison, compare the GDP of Canada to China.

It would be better to compare ESA to China... in which case, it still makes no sense...

ESA has done more than China, it's building a huge probe mission to Ganymede as we speak and has modules on the ISS (the only reason China has its own systems is because the US Congress declined to allow NASA to).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2017, 8:11 PM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
The Canadian Space Program is connected to ESA (Europe), and partially to NASA. It's also not a fair comparison, compare the GDP of Canada to China.

It would be better to compare ESA to China... in which case, it still makes no sense...

ESA has done more than China, it's building a huge probe mission to Ganymede as we speak and has modules on the ISS (the only reason China has its own systems is because the US Congress declined to allow NASA to).
Do you think a highway/bridge to the Sunshine Coast will be realized in the near future? I personally feel that such road development should ultimately seek to link the B.C. mainland to Vancouver island via a series of bridges between Powell River and Campbell River.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2017, 8:40 PM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
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?
Site C was supposed to reduce imports from thermal plants in the states and increase exports to California to make more $$$.

BC Hydro actually is a net importer due to turning down its hydro plants at night, and there isn't capacity for the next 30 years. The alternative would be large $$$ for R+D for geothermal plants or a massive expansion of their private electricity buy-out program to large scale plants as well.

Which is a good thing for Peace River Residents, because they probably don't care about Peace River as much, and would have built both Site C and E if given the chance... (remembers Bute Inlet) (shudders)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
I think the bigger issue is the fact we live in a Province with $237 billion GDP per year and we gripe over $3 billion (1.26%) in infrastructure spending spread over 25 years. That's kind of like someone making $237,000 per year losing sleep over buying a $3,000 house.

There's always going to be a segment of the population that thinks any 1 project is stupid and pointless, especially if it doesn't affect them daily which is true for probably 95% of the people in BC for every project and really the money isn't much if the business case is sound.

For this specifically, I think it is a neat concept. My thoughts and opinions right now are:

1. Given the options presented, costs, and populations of Powell River + Sunshine Coast combined being just shy of 40,000 people, the reason for this absolutely has to be about goods and resource movement/access, not people's homes. If its just about the people living there having faster driving access to the mainland, then I'd say none of these are worth it and yes the money then could be better spent elsewhere even for goods movement like putting it toward a faster link between Metro Vancouver and Prince Rupert for example.

2. I wonder what the real issue is ultimately. A few have said it is the ferry cut backs for Powell River. If that's the case then just the link between it an Sunshine Coast could help that by giving access directly to SC. That said would that not just move the problem then to the Sunshine Coast ferry link?

3. I'm a little confused as to if multiple options are available or if the options are all exclusive. Aka could they do a road to Powell River then the bridge link to Sunshine Coast from Powell River? Or could they do both bridge links to Sunshine Coast & Powell River. Or is it like only options A, B, C, or D.

Maybe I missed that somewhere.

4. $3 billion which is the most expensive one is pocket change in the grand scheme of things infrastructure wise (we've just spend $10 billion+ in the last decade in metro Vancouver alone and last I checked all the infrastructure through kicking horse pass near Golden doesn't service much population if that's what matters...), especially if new resource access is opened up. Think it could be especially useful for Powell River which is double detached from Metro-Vancouver right now (2 ferries and a long drive to get there). With direct road access there, the town could see a boom of industry especially with links to Squamish which is already starting to see a boom in recent years.

5. Overall I think this will help Squamish out a bunch more than Metro-Vancouver.

6. People need to get over the fact that houses are being built everywhere. We live in a world where people can't stop multiplying by the millions every year, so get used to it. The cities are going to grow bigger and bigger and any towns within a rock throw distance from Metro-Vancouver which in 50 years will be 4+ million people, will feel the affects of that.

For those counting, yes by 2050 projections are Metro-Vancouver will add another Metro-Vancouver within the same boundaries it is today. That's Vancouver City @ 1 million+, Surrey at 1 million+, etc. etc.

If the people in the Sunshine Coast or Chilliwack or Abbotsford or Squamish etc. want to feel like they live in the middle of nowhere near nobody and in the great vast wilderness, they better be prepared to eventually move up to Fort Nelson BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...lation_in_2050

Considering BC is near "Average" in terms of % growth in population, I actually think net population growth is probably going to be on the conservative side.

North American population growth is going to be fairly low in the future, and be driven by immigration, which is vulnerable to geopolitics (and politics in general). Say a Canadian Trump comes into power, and puts a temporary ban on Muslim Immigration into Canada.


Also, if another major recession hits(likely), population will also grow much slower- people don't immigrate to nations with bad economies, and people in those economies make fewer babies.

Combine this with the fact that global population will peak at ~2050-2060 due to declining fertility.

I would be suprised if we get sprawl up to the edges of Maple Ridge by 2050, to be honest with you.

There's still a lot of land in West Van, Maple Ridge and Langley- and we've been densifiying enormously.


TLDR; I can't help but feel these estimates of population growth are a bit too liberal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2017, 8:50 PM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
Do you think a highway/bridge to the Sunshine Coast will be realized in the near future? I personally feel that such road development should ultimately seek to link the B.C. mainland to Vancouver island via a series of bridges between Powell River and Campbell River.
It's impossible, period. We're more likely to see that "fast Ferry Line" from Iona Island. And honestly, I'd want to see that.


The Sunshine Coast Bridge is Vancouver's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busan%...oje_Fixed_Link
Except, of course, the situation is a little less dire (prices are driven by speculation, not population, so estimates that don't take that into account are wildly-overestimating future demand) because there is a lot of land in Maple Ridge and Mission to develop on.

Any Sunshine Coast link should be funded at least 25% by real estate developers. It's not like they won't be drooling over that land anyways.


Overall, it should be built, in my opinion- right after that Iona Island Ferry and an expressway down Hwy 15 and a Extension of Golden Ears Way across Maple Ridge (Hwy 407?).

I'm wondering if that study is out yet. Has the Bowen Island link been shut down? Because that would have been best in my POV. If you're going to build it, make it as short as possible so the economic benefits are higher. Maybe all the Vancouver NIMBYs can move there .


If anything, we should have a GateWay Project 2.0, and put this link in it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2017, 9:38 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
Site C was supposed to reduce imports from thermal plants in the states and increase exports to California to make more $$$.

BC Hydro actually is a net importer due to turning down its hydro plants at night, and there isn't capacity for the next 30 years. The alternative would be large $$$ for R+D for geothermal plants or a massive expansion of their private electricity buy-out program to large scale plants as well.
Site C is/was planned to be used for LNG. Typical LNG facilities use up 20% or so of the gas as overhead to compress it to liquid form. Site C will do this but without the GHG emissions.

Actual electricity usage in BC has not scaled with population. In fact it has been flat for many years (sorry no link right now).

I do believe that it will ramp up with more efforts to reduce emissions, electric vehicles, etc. And Site C is a good idea. Big issues for me are the amount of debt BC Hydro is holding, all governments forcing a dividend out of them, the expensive power purchase contracts that they were mandated to get into, and conversely the really cheap deals the LNG plants will get if they are ever built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2017, 9:58 PM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Site C is/was planned to be used for LNG. Typical LNG facilities use up 20% or so of the gas as overhead to compress it to liquid form. Site C will do this but without the GHG emissions.

Actual electricity usage in BC has not scaled with population. In fact it has been flat for many years (sorry no link right now).

I do believe that it will ramp up with more efforts to reduce emissions, electric vehicles, etc. And Site C is a good idea. Big issues for me are the amount of debt BC Hydro is holding, all governments forcing a dividend out of them, the expensive power purchase contracts that they were mandated to get into, and conversely the really cheap deals the LNG plants will get if they are ever built.
The LNG electricity being low cost is almost certainly a subsidy to promote Canadian Gas Infrastructure, considering how competitive the scene it right now. I'd rather see the jobs here than down south- if that means subsidies, so be it.

I would privatize BC Hydro and split it up if I was running the government, (also pushing out the debt to the private sector in the process), but I'm sure everyone has different opinions on the matter. I'm a filthy conservative, after all And I don't want to get into that discussion again.

Though I think we should demand lower prices for PPPs. We're subsiding projects that have too low of an EOREI, and the technology isn't ready yet to build small hydro plants in every other river on the BC Coast.


I also don't see why people have huge problems with exporting to California. They pay a nice premium, and solving climate change is everyone's problem. From an environmental standpoint, it makes perfect sense.

That's what I hate about environmentalists, you can never please them.

Nuclear? Too dangerous and nuclear waste.
Hydro? Destroys habitats.
Wind? #NIMBY.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2017, 1:06 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
It's impossible, period. We're more likely to see that "fast Ferry Line" from Iona Island. And honestly, I'd want to see that.


The Sunshine Coast Bridge is Vancouver's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busan%...oje_Fixed_Link
Except, of course, the situation is a little less dire (prices are driven by speculation, not population, so estimates that don't take that into account are wildly-overestimating future demand) because there is a lot of land in Maple Ridge and Mission to develop on.

Any Sunshine Coast link should be funded at least 25% by real estate developers. It's not like they won't be drooling over that land anyways.


Overall, it should be built, in my opinion- right after that Iona Island Ferry and an expressway down Hwy 15 and a Extension of Golden Ears Way across Maple Ridge (Hwy 407?).

I'm wondering if that study is out yet. Has the Bowen Island link been shut down? Because that would have been best in my POV. If you're going to build it, make it as short as possible so the economic benefits are higher. Maybe all the Vancouver NIMBYs can move there .


If anything, we should have a GateWay Project 2.0, and put this link in it.
Bowen Island and Gambier Island options are out (no go) probably because of the island trust fund etc. they eliminated them early on and to be fair they would have been too challenging anyways because of the spans and depths and private property in the way. Anvil Island, Squamish, Squamish to Powell River and Nelson Island crossing linking Powel River to the rest of the sunshine coast.

I am confident a fixed link will be built. I am surprised the recommendations have not been released as they were due 4th quarter 2016. I would assume something will be released between now and May.

Personally I can see a fixed link in 5 years being a reality. It will be from Squamish or over Anvil island. Link from Squamish to Powell river is also possible but unlikely imo.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/tr...ast-fixed-link

https://sunshinecoastconnector.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2017, 1:20 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
I also don't see why people have huge problems with exporting to California. They pay a nice premium, and solving climate change is everyone's problem. From an environmental standpoint, it makes perfect sense.
Export what? Electricity? Water?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
That's what I hate about environmentalists, you can never please them.

Nuclear? Too dangerous and nuclear waste.
Hydro? Destroys habitats.
Wind? #NIMBY.
No kidding. Sometimes, it's like the hardcore "save the planet" types think the province can be powered by good vibes...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2017, 4:33 AM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
Bowen Island and Gambier Island options are out (no go) probably because of the island trust fund etc. they eliminated them early on and to be fair they would have been too challenging anyways because of the spans and depths and private property in the way. Anvil Island, Squamish, Squamish to Powell River and Nelson Island crossing linking Powel River to the rest of the sunshine coast.

I am confident a fixed link will be built. I am surprised the recommendations have not been released as they were due 4th quarter 2016. I would assume something will be released between now and May.

Personally I can see a fixed link in 5 years being a reality. It will be from Squamish or over Anvil island. Link from Squamish to Powell river is also possible but unlikely imo.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/tr...ast-fixed-link

https://sunshinecoastconnector.wordpress.com/
That's a shame, it limits the benefits from such a link- it's probably farther from Vancouver than Aldergrove...

I would have waited half a decade if it meant the shorter link over Bowen Island...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Export what? Electricity? Water?



No kidding. Sometimes, it's like the hardcore "save the planet" types think the province can be powered by good vibes...
electricity
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2017, 5:04 AM
Procrastinational's Avatar
Procrastinational Procrastinational is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
TLDR; I can't help but feel these estimates of population growth are a bit too liberal.
It's quite common to see urban areas continue to grow even in countries with a declining population. Japan's population is declining, but cities like Tokyo are still growing, albeit slowly. And that's with a declining population. Even low end projections for Canada generally show growth up until the mid century mark. Even if population in BC comes in way under projections, the Lower Mainland will still see significant growth over the next 30+ years.

Also, never factor out the possibility of rather large migrations from warmer regions of the planet to cooler as the climate changes. In that case, the need to move overrides any economic or political considerations since it can be a matter of life and death.
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 5:56 PM.

     

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