New Westminster plans passenger ferry service from Quay to Queensborough

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

One way out of that problem would be to widen the pool of stake holders by building a road bridge.

Of course, residential Queensborough or the Quay won't want to be flooded with cars and trucks. So don't let them - reserve it for use of buses and emergency vehicles. Re-route the 410 from 22nd Avenue Station to New Westminster Station by way of Ewen Avenue and Quayside Drive, and the benefits are:

• base-level 10-12 minute bus service in Queensborough and the Quay along a straighter line from Richmond
• Access to a more central train station with more potential destinations for Lulu Island originating passengers
• improved access to Hamilton Transit Centre for other buses, avoiding the frequent congestion of all the highways out of Queensborough & Annacis Island
• faster access to the Royal Columbian Hospital from Queensborough
• originally desired pedestrian connectivity benefits.

I could be wrong, but I reckon you could squeeze a bridge in there meeting clearance requirements and wheelchair grades between Quayside Drive and Star Crescscent.

How does that solve the $30 million gap?

Also I would never attempt a bus only bridge in this city based on what I've seen in current bus only lanes. It will be abused.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

One way out of that problem would be to widen the pool of stake holders by building a road bridge.

Of course, residential Queensborough or the Quay won't want to be flooded with cars and trucks. So don't let them - reserve it for use of buses and emergency vehicles. Re-route the 410 from 22nd Avenue Station to New Westminster Station by way of Ewen Avenue and Quayside Drive, and the benefits are:

How much do you think that would cost if a pedestrian bridge costs $30-40 million?

What are the long term development plans for that neighbourhood?

They should build the gondola up to SFU before they think about a bus-only bridge for Queensborough.

[SpongeG]

re the foot bridge

Over the last few years, New Westminster has been contemplating constructing a pedestrian-only bridge across the Fraser River between Quayside and Queensborough.

A 230 m long, 3 m wide bascule draw bridge, which can be raised to allow tall vessel traffic to pass through, was envisioned.

But this ‘Q2Q Bridge’ plan fell apart last fall when a City-commissioned study by SNC Lavalin found that a bridge would cost $39.1 million to construct, far greater than the $11 million allocated by City Council.




Costs for the structure soared due to the need to build a taller bridge with more clearance so that most marine traffic can pass without the need to open the bridge.

There was opposition to the idea of a taller bridge during the public consultation phase over concerns that the structure would be visually intrusive.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/new-w...form=hootsuite

[ronthecivil]

Originally Posted by Pinion

How does that solve the $30 million gap?

Also I would never attempt a bus only bridge in this city based on what I've seen in current bus only lanes. It will be abused.

Well if it's for more general uses perhaps you can get some more funding and/or justify more spending. New west has 30 million bucks if they want it (but I understand not wanting to drop it on a draw bridge!).

You can easily install a camera that automatically tickets abusers that don't follow the rules. It would be a bridge after, and most vehicles have the technology already.

Just think of it as a bridge with a 300 dollar toll.

[ronthecivil]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

re the foot bridge



http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/new-w...form=hootsuite

That's hilarious. The neighbours don't want a high bridge, so build a draw bridge instead.: shrug:

Talk about caving to the NIMBYS!!!!!!

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by ronthecivil

That's hilarious. The neighbours don't want a high bridge, so build a draw bridge instead.: shrug:

Talk about caving to the NIMBYS!!!!!!

My understanding is that New West has $7M of free casino money to spend on this and might be willing to spend up to $20M or so if really needed. This is beyond the originally stated budget of roughly $12M. I would assume that a low level "drawbridge" crossing would be within this budget. It is also what the city and residents want. The blocker is that approval is needed from the Port (Marine Carriers). They are calling for the taller more costly structure, which is also less convenient for users and more unsightly for nearby residents. If somehow a low-level bridge could be approved I bet the pedestrian bridge would be built in fairly short order.

[ronthecivil]

Originally Posted by rickvug

My understanding is that New West has $7M of free casino money to spend on this and might be willing to spend up to $20M or so if really needed. This is beyond the originally stated budget of roughly $12M. I would assume that a low level "drawbridge" crossing would be within this budget. It is also what the city and residents want. The blocker is that approval is needed from the Port (Marine Carriers). They are calling for the taller more costly structure, which is also less convenient for users and more unsightly for nearby residents. If somehow a low-level bridge could be approved I bet the pedestrian bridge would be built in fairly short order.

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.

[twoNeurons]

I doubt nimbyism is what is preventimg this. Money is. Chances are locals don't want taxes to be put into a $30M bridge more than they don't want the visible intrusion. Pedestrian bridges rarely are considered eyesores and usually enhance a community. Seriously, what view would a skinny bridge be blocking? The dirty Fraser? The marine traffic? The far off mountains in the valley?

I don't think, in this case, NIMBY attitudes are getting in the way.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I doubt nimbyism is what is preventimg this. Money is. Chances are locals don't want taxes to be put into a $30M bridge more than they don't want the visible intrusion. Pedestrian bridges rarely are considered eyesores and usually enhance a community. Seriously, what view would a skinny bridge be blocking? The dirty Fraser? The marine traffic? The far off mountains in the valley?

I don't think, in this case, NIMBY attitudes are getting in the way.

They aren't, it's all money. You're bang on.

There are a small handful of "oh no the bridge will let people look in my windows" but they're really the tiny minority. A lot of people in New West on both sides of the river want the bridge, but the money is the stumbling block here.

[flipper316]

the longer the wait the more expensive it'll be.

[twoNeurons]

Something like this could work:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...destrians.html

Of course... that's London... and the Thames... so entirely different budget.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Something like this could work:

Of course... that's London... and the Thames... so entirely different budget.

Yes, and they thought of things like that, and you can't build a bridge like that for under $30m, which they don't have.

Everybody here who thinks they're being clever about "oh they could build a bridge like London" or "oh they could build a bascule bridge" is rehashing all of the thoughts that they've already had. And everything is too expensive.

If the Fraser weren't a working river and no ships had to get through, it'd be relatively easy. But ships need to get through, and the demands of the site dictate that the bridge either be tall or be a swing or drawbridge. All of these are expensive and would completely blow the modest budget that the city has.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Yes, and they thought of things like that, and you can't build a bridge like that for under $30m, which they don't have.

Everybody here who thinks they're being clever about "oh they could build a bridge like London" or "oh they could build a bascule bridge" is rehashing all of the thoughts that they've already had. And everything is too expensive.

If the Fraser weren't a working river and no ships had to get through, it'd be relatively easy. But ships need to get through, and the demands of the site dictate that the bridge either be tall or be a swing or drawbridge. All of these are expensive and would completely blow the modest budget that the city has.

Of course... but the city needs to evaluate the importance of linking up Queensborough to New West. If it's a priority, increase the budget. To fund the increase, either find the money from another area of government, increase development fees in Queensborough, or increase efficiencies. Is linking two parts of the city worth the cost? Will it enhance the city long-term? They wanted a bridge on a budget that they could purchase from their savings account, but it's clear that they need to think bigger.

The solution, I don't think, is a ferry... but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Yes, and they thought of things like that, and you can't build a bridge like that for under $30m, which they don't have.

Everybody here who thinks they're being clever about "oh they could build a bridge like London" or "oh they could build a bascule bridge" is rehashing all of the thoughts that they've already had. And everything is too expensive.

If the Fraser weren't a working river and no ships had to get through, it'd be relatively easy. But ships need to get through, and the demands of the site dictate that the bridge either be tall or be a swing or drawbridge. All of these are expensive and would completely blow the modest budget that the city has.

Bridge can be bellow surface (i.e. underpass) but probably they did not look at that and innovation is difficult in Canada with our rigid approval process. Still you don't need much width (20 meters?) and the draught of the ships is probably limited as is so what do you need maybe 5 meters clearance at low tide? I don't know but it cant be much. Floating bridge with a mid span bellow water underpass with some lights. Grades are not a big issue like they are for cars and trains and you certainly dont need to go down as much as you need to go up. Maybe 5 meters vs 30 meters if you want to go over the barges loaded with mountains of pulp. Its a big difference.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Of course... but the city needs to evaluate the importance of linking up Queensborough to New West. If it's a priority, increase the budget. To fund the increase, either find the money from another area of government, increase development fees in Queensborough, or increase efficiencies. Is linking two parts of the city worth the cost? Will it enhance the city long-term? They wanted a bridge on a budget that they could purchase from their savings account, but it's clear that they need to think bigger.

The solution, I don't think, is a ferry... but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Why would anyone from New West want to go to Queensborough? Sure if you redevelop the seawalk by the river I could see people walking it and even maybe some tourists drawn in by the market. But trying to pretend that there's some demand for a bridge (that costs $30-40 million) is a stretch.

Sticking even more residents on Queensborough seems like they'll be needing an actual bridge and not just for pedestrians.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Bridge can be bellow surface (i.e. underpass) but probably they did not look at that and innovation is difficult in Canada with our rigid approval process. Still you don't need much width (20 meters?) and the draught of the ships is probably limited as is so what do you need maybe 5 meters clearance at low tide? I don't know but it cant be much. Floating bridge with a mid span bellow water underpass with some lights. Grades are not a big issue like they are for cars and trains and you certainly dont need to go down as much as you need to go up. Maybe 5 meters vs 30 meters if you want to go over the barges loaded with mountains of pulp. Its a big difference.

good way to give the homeless a place to sleep. that's one of the biggest issues with underpasses and why the City of Vancouver isn't really considering them around the train tracks. too many homeless people would sleep in them; on-top of that they are also generally dingy. for a car its no issue, but for bikes and people it is.

[VancouverMark]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Why would anyone from New West want to go to Queensborough? Sure if you redevelop the seawalk by the river I could see people walking it and even maybe some tourists drawn in by the market. But trying to pretend that there's some demand for a bridge (that costs $30-40 million) is a stretch.

Sticking even more residents on Queensborough seems like they'll be needing an actual bridge and not just for pedestrians.

My thoughts exactly. The only people who would use the bridge are residents of Queensborough near the new bridge. People who could walk to the quay and take transit instead of dealing with the Queensborough gong-show. The Queensborough end of the Bridge (Port Royal) is too far from the major shopping area (Queensborough Landing) so you aren't going to attract residents of New West and the Quay to Queensborough.

[Kisai]

I think everything is a losing proposal here.

If you build a fixed bridge, then it's going to be big, and not as well used as people think it will unless it has vehicle access.

If you setup a ferry, you at least establish a traffic pattern.

As for realtors trying to sell people on Queensborough. I'd laugh at any realtor that promised any kind of transit development.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I think everything is a losing proposal here.

If you build a fixed bridge, then it's going to be big, and not as well used as people think it will unless it has vehicle access.

If you setup a ferry, you at least establish a traffic pattern.

As for realtors trying to sell people on Queensborough. I'd laugh at any realtor that promised any kind of transit development.

One of the problems is that it wasn't just realtors talking up the Q2Q bridge. I was at an opening for the tower at Port Royal and the mayor was there, doing a pretty good job of talking up the bridge. And you've got brochures like this from the city that really strongly imply that the bridge is going to be built with absolutely no mention that it's still in design or funding hasn't been secured or it's subject to budgetary constraints.

If you saw that brochure back in early 2015, you'd think that the bridge was pretty much a done deal.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

One of the problems is that it wasn't just realtors talking up the Q2Q bridge. I was at an opening for the tower at Port Royal and the mayor was there, doing a pretty good job of talking up the bridge. And you've got brochures like this from the city that really strongly imply that the bridge is going to be built with absolutely no mention that it's still in design or funding hasn't been secured or it's subject to budgetary constraints.

If you saw that brochure back in early 2015, you'd think that the bridge was pretty much a done deal.

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!!!