Fixed-link to the mainland

[amor de cosmos]

What does everyone think of this? In case some people don't already post on Skyscraperpage.com here's a thread about it:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=152663

[jklymak]

W/o reading the whole thread, I agree with the writers who think it is technically unfeasible.

[amor de cosmos]

Originally Posted by jklymak

W/o reading the whole thread, I agree with the writers who think it is technically unfeasible.

from Swartz Bay to Tsawassen anyway..... I also think Victoria could just become a suburb of Vancouver if there were a road link.

[Nparker]

A fixed link will be built sometime after the following headline appears in the Times-Colonist:

"Saudi Arabian developers to build 250-story tower on site of Emily Carr's birthplace" - Councillor-for-life Madoff says 'I'm thrilled'. "Finally James Bay can have a building of which to be proud".

[guyinthesky]

Originally Posted by Nparker

A fixed link will be built sometime after the following headline appears in the Times-Colonist:

"Saudi Arabian developers to build 250-story tower on site of Emily Carr's birthplace" - Councillor-for-life Madoff says 'I'm thrilled'. "Finally James Bay can have a building of which to be proud".

I think you should add that one into the Ultimate Rumor Thread - I want to be the Tower Crane Operator on that one, although if there are any pilots around here, watch out eh?

[Holden West]

Every few months another dumb fixed link thread appears on Skyscraper Page. Here's the bottom line on why it will NEVER happen:

-Too deep for a regular bridge or tunnel. Too much ocean traffic and unpredictable weather for a floating bridge. The Hood Canal Bridge in Washington needs replacing and it's not even 50 years old (and did I mention it sank in 1979? Oops.)

-It would still need to be maintained by an army of workers who can strike just as easily as ferry workers can.

-The toll would be astronomical. Flying may be a cheaper option. The government simply doesn't have this money to spend. It would have to be privately financed and investors would need at least a 15% return on such a high risk construction project.

-This would not be a scenic trip. Long bridges like this have high walls to prevent driver fatigue and distraction. It would be like 45 minutes in a parking garage at highway speeds.

-Winter. Imagine plowing a bridge of this length every snowfall.

There are more but I'll stop here.

[aastra]

I still say my rail tunnel concept through the San Juans is perfectly viable, assuming the cash/motivation are there. In a hundred years...we'll see.

[aastra]

I also think Victoria could just become a suburb of Vancouver if there were a road link.

Or vice versa.

[gumgum]

Originally Posted by Holden West

Every few months another dumb fixed link thread appears on Skyscraper Page. Here's the bottom line on why it will NEVER happen:

-Too deep for a regular bridge or tunnel. Too much ocean traffic and unpredictable weather for a floating bridge. The Hood Canal Bridge in Washington needs replacing and it's not even 50 years old (and did I mention it sank in 1979? Oops.)

-It would still need to be maintained by an army of workers who can strike just as easily as ferry workers can.

-The toll would be astronomical. Flying may be a cheaper option. The government simply doesn't have this money to spend. It would have to be privately financed and investors would need at least a 15% return on such a high risk construction project.

-This would not be a scenic trip. Long bridges like this have high walls to prevent driver fatigue and distraction. It would be like 45 minutes in a parking garage at highway speeds.

-Winter. Imagine plowing a bridge of this length every snowfall.

There are more but I'll stop here.

All those and the fact that it would be complete suicidal lunacy for the politician in power to take this on.

I don't like to say things like this with such resoluteness, but this will never, ever happen in our lifetime.

[gumgum]

And by strange coincidence - this story in today's TC:

Ferry CEO offers to survey Gabriola residents on bridge
Fixed-link toll bridge concept renews old debate pitting pastoral lifestyle against convenience
Jonathan Fowlie, Canwest News Service
Published: Saturday, June 28, 2008

[Ms. B. Havin]

Best part of article, imo, were these sound bites from André Lemieux, "chair of the Gabriola Ferry Advisory Committee, [who] bristled even at the mention of reopening the bridge debate."

Lemieux articulated (in miniature) some of the arguments you hear from recent Victorians:

When asked why the issue is so sensitive, Lemieux said people become extremely attached to their island lifestyle, and see it in jeopardy if getting there becomes too easy.

"People have moved to Gabriola for a way of life. That's their issue -- I'm not saying it's my point of view," he said. "They come over here and they don't want to have a bridge, because if they do their way of life will be the same as what they left."

You know, if that's the case then they can't complain about the ferry rates. You can't have it both ways: splendid isolation (and the privileged exaltation that brings) and cheap access.

Now, as for Victoria: I don't think we can afford "splendid isolation" in a networked, interconnected, global world. So, while I understand the technical impediments to a fixed link for Victoria, I would never support the idea that we live "on an island" because we need to stay "away from it all."

BTW, interesting, too, that it's the price of oil that drove Hahn to offering to undertake this survey of Gabriola residents.

[Baro]

Poor england just became a suburb of europe after they built the chunnel.

[Mike K.]

^yeah, suckers.

So as the population grows, are we going to keep spending billions on new ferries? Eventually building and operating such behemoths will be as costly as building some form of a fixed link. Whether the time comes in 50 years or 250, it's irresponsible for us to say it will never happen.

[yodsaker]

Originally Posted by Baro

Poor england just became a suburb of europe after they built the chunnel.

Brings to mind the famous Victorian news headline, "Continent cut off by storm."
Vancouverites would never go for a fixed link.
No way they want to be contaminated by hairy, plaid-shirted, Birkenstock-wearing hordes from Vanisle.
And those are just the women!

[gumgum]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

^yeah, suckers.

So as the population grows, are we going to keep spending billions on new ferries? Eventually building and operating such behemoths will be as costly as building some form of a fixed link. Whether the time comes in 50 years or 250, it's irresponsible for us to say it will never happen.

If we're still on this forum in 50 years and they build one, Mike I will buy you a car. In our lifetime, we will never see one. I'm pretty damn sure of this.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Baro

Poor england just became a suburb of europe after they built the chunnel.

Exactly. If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times. No one is going to commute if the cost is $50 each way daily. That's $2200 per month for a daily commuter.

Price the link correctly and we are fine.

[amor de cosmos]

Originally Posted by gumgum

If we're still on this forum in 50 years and they build one, Mike I will buy you a car. In our lifetime, we will never see one. I'm pretty damn sure of this.

Not from Swartz Bay to Tsawassen anyway.... on the Skyscraperpage.com thread about this some guy known as "amor de cosmos" posted some stuff about the CPR's fixed-link ideas from the 1870s:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...4s#post3630844
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...93#post3631593
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...92#post3635792
& a map here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...11#post3640011

[Mike K.]

If we're still on this forum in 50 years and they build one, Mike I will buy you a car. In our lifetime, we will never see one. I'm pretty damn sure of this.

I'll hold you to that!

But I still think it's irresponsible for us to say it will never happen. Society is too concerned with the present to think ahead into the future so we have a difficult time thinking beyond 50 years. Hell, 150 years ago there was no Victoria and no Vancouver to speak of. In 150 years who knows what will become of southwest BC and the sorts of infrastructure requirements the region will have.

Below is a map aastra posted on SkyscraperPage (in one of the links Amor posted above). Seems like a reasonable fixed link to the island, don't you think?

[Baro]

Way too much border crossing nightmares to build that bridge. In europe they can do stuff like that but we'd have to have some sort of terrifying union or very strong agreement with the US to really build a link like that. For pure geography that's a reasonable path (if we had the future-engineering to build it) but politically it would be impossible.

[yodsaker]

No worries, it will all be USA eventually.
We have what they need and they won't be shy about "faire le necessaire".

[Mike K.]

Way too much border crossing nightmares to build that bridge. In europe they can do stuff like that but we'd have to have some sort of terrifying union or very strong agreement with the US to really build a link like that. For pure geography that's a reasonable path (if we had the future-engineering to build it) but politically it would be impossible.

Not really. You clear customs on the Saan Penn to outgoing traffic and in Bellingham for incoming traffic. RFID would track your progress along the bridge with no exits or entries aside from the terminus at either end so there is no security risk to speak of.

[gumgum]

^If there are no off or on ramps on the smaller islands, there would be no benefit to them. and yet they would suffer all of the disadvantages of having a bridge carving their land in half.
A pretty hard sell. Especially considering it's all for the benefit of another country.

[Mike K.]

It's hard to say whether or not residents would want exits or entrances. Afterall, easy access to their islands would create a population boom and lead to more visitors/vehicular traffic. And I suppose one solution could be a mixed tunnel/highway road if necessary.

[LJ]

Yeah thats great - get a fixed link that requires a border wait at SP, then another border wait at Bellingham to get back into Canada, then an hour drive to Vancouver.

Shouldn't take more than 6 hours. Brilliant.

I would rather wait at the ferry terminal for two sailings, where you park your car and get out and walk around and still get there faster.

Whoever drew this wonder up never sat in a border line up.

Might be OK if your destination was in the states but who is going to finance that bridge. The Canadian Govt. sure isn't. The American Govt. sure isn't.

I am afraid that one is a pure pipe dream.

[guyinthesky]

Time for a bridge to mainland?
Idea not likely to stay afloat, experts say
Katherine Dedyna, Times Colonist
Published: Friday, July 25, 2008

When ferry fees go up, so do calls for a fixed link between Vancouver Island and the mainland.

"Start pouring the foundations for the bridge today," Chris Prestly posted on the Times Colonist website in the wake of this week's hike to $61.40 for car and driver come Aug. 1. "I've got no problem paying a toll vs. these insane ferry surcharges."

But does the idea hold water? Maybe not, experts say. Here's why.

YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE

A fixed link would definitely not run between Victoria and Vancouver. It would likely be located somewhere between Nanaimo and Duncan and Delta. That's because the route would need to cover the shortest distance across the Strait of Georgia, says chief engineer Dirk Nyland of the Ministry of Transportation.

For Victorians, that would mean time-consuming, gas-guzzling trips over the Malahat, and traverses on Galiano and Saltspring islands.

AND IT WOULDN'T BE CHEAP

According to a 2002 report posted on the B.C. Ministry of Transportation's website, fares to cross such a bridge would range between $260 to $800. And that's only one way.

Why so much?

Costly fares are almost inevitable for such structures, because they are so expensive to build. The province could not bear the cost alone, and a private-sector partner would require a return on its investment of between 12 and 20 per cent, according to the ministry.

Even six years ago, the province projected the link would cost between $8 billion and $12 billion.

University of Victoria economist Daniel Rondeau says he wouldn't be surprised if the real costs rose "at least 50 per cent," given inflation and increased costs in labour, concrete and steel.

"It's one in a thousand that a cost-benefit analysis would ever turn up something like 'It's an economically viable project,' " he says.

The annual operating budget for the three major ferry routes a fixed link would replace is $253.5 million.

Issues? Start counting

There are "extreme" waves of up to seven metres, tides of six metres, earthquake threats and wind gusts up to 180 kilometres per hour.

Other traffic is also an issue. There is the risk of a tanker running into a bridge -- about 45,000 vessels use the strait annually. A contractor would need to dredge two channels at least 200 metres wide and 65 metres deep to accommodate those vessels.

Underwater landslides are possible because of potential instabilities on the mainland marine slope.

DEEP WATER

The Strait of Georgia is 10 times deeper than the water crossed by Prince Edward Island's Confederation Bridge to New Brunswick.

The ocean there is 35 metres deep over a rock bottom, versus 365 metres of water and just as many of mud in the Strait of Georgia, says Sharlie Huffman, bridge seismic engineer with the Ministry of Transportation.

A bridge over the Strait of Georgia would run 24 to 26 kilometres, nearly 10 times as long as the $1.8 billion Rion Antirion Bridge in Greece, which is also in a seismic zone with deep sediment. But the Greek bridge is in water only 65 metres deep.

A fixed link is possible in theory, Nyland says, but "in practice, while the technology seems to be there, it's never been used that way before."

So what about a floating bridge?

"There are no fixed bridges in existence today that would meet the conditions present in Georgia Strait," the 2002 government report says.

Floating bridges have only been used on short distances, Nyland says, giving as an example the 2.3-kilometre bridge that runs from Seattle to Mercer Island in Washington state.

High winds and heavy shipping on 25 kilometres of open water are big problems. Anchor cable hundreds of metres deep could affect whales and fishing, Nyland adds.

Even if financing were in place today, a bridge would take at least five years of planning and six to 10 years to build.

"No one is going to build such a thing," says Guy Dauncey, president of the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association.

There might also be resistance to a fixed link that would connect Vancouver Island to the rest of the province. After all, it raises the spectre of regular commuters from the mainland who might make Island communities suburbs of Vancouver.

kdedyna@tc.canwest.com