Bob Long Posted December 9, 2023 Share Posted December 9, 2023 7 minutes ago, bishopshodan said: I like that the BC NDP commited a bit of dough to this. Trades are needed in a big way. https://www.vicnews.com/news/new-trades-technology-school-adds-to-b-c-ndps-economic-plan-96839 The B.C. government is committing $136 million to build a new trades and technology centre at the B.C. Institute of Technology to close a skills gap that’s widening as baby boomers retire. 700 new spots per year.. ground hasn't broken yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted December 14, 2023 Share Posted December 14, 2023 On 12/8/2023 at 2:38 PM, 6of1_halfdozenofother said: The Confederation Bridge is about 8 miles long. It cost around $1.4 billion to build between 1993 and 1997. Based on a conversion calculator, that $1.4bil of 1997 dollars would be around $2.7bil now, and extrapolating (as an estimate) to 3x the length would mean around $8bil, give or take a billion for scale. Correspondingly, the fleet replacement / capital plan put forth by BC Ferries is $5.2 billion, for which the replacement of Queen class ferries with hybrids that @Bob Long seems to think will be a waste (but yet is unable to come up with a viable alternative) is just a part of. I personally hope that local shipyards will put in successful bids and are able to deliver something that is of good quality, can be maintained and have parts readily available locally, and can provide good shipbuilding and maintenance jobs to help the local/provincial economy. Looking at you, Seaspan. Unfortunately, the Confederation Bridge isn't a good comparable. The waters under it are up to 40 metres deep and it has a solid rock bottom. The span a Salish Sea bridge would have to cross is up to 450 metres deep and has a loose sediment bottom (sediment outflow from the Fraser River). Meaning you'd have to dig even deeper for solid foundations. If you wanted a bridge like the Confederation bridge you'd have to build half-kilometer tall pilers to support the spans. The tallest bridge pillars in the world (foundation to bridge deck) are on the Millau Viaduct in France at a measly 244m. We don't have the engineering and materials science capability to do it today. If we wanted to be the first to do that kind of engineering, we'd probably be looking at $100+ billion to test, design, and then finally build it. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted December 14, 2023 Share Posted December 14, 2023 Just now, MattJVD said: Unfortunately, the Confederation Bridge isn't a good comparable. The waters under it are up to 40 metres deep and it has a solid rock bottom. The span a Salish Sea bridge would have to cross is up to 450 metres deep and has a loose sediment bottom (sediment outflow from the Fraser River). Meaning you'd have to dig even deeper for solid foundations. If you wanted a bridge like the Confederation bridge you'd have to build half-kilometer tall pilers to support the spans. The tallest bridge pillars in the world (foundation to bridge deck) are on the Millau Viaduct in France at a measly 244m. We don't have the engineering and materials science capability to do it today. If we wanted to be the first to do that kind of engineering, we'd probably be looking at $100+ billion to test, design, and then finally build it. Yeah, mine was a "back of the envelope" estimate based on assumptions that the parameters for the Confederation Bridge were translatable to our situation. Obviously I'm not a Civil Engineer, so I'm not attuned to what the real situation is off our shores and the complexities involved. If anything, though, your notes corroborate my point of it being not really financially feasible to build a bridge across the water from the mainland to the island, vs. making more capital purchases to bolster the fleet - so thanks for that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted December 14, 2023 Share Posted December 14, 2023 2 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said: Yeah, mine was a "back of the envelope" estimate based on assumptions that the parameters for the Confederation Bridge were translatable to our situation. Obviously I'm not a Civil Engineer, so I'm not attuned to what the real situation is off our shores and the complexities involved. If anything, though, your notes corroborate my point of it being not really financially feasible to build a bridge across the water from the mainland to the island, vs. making more capital purchases to bolster the fleet - so thanks for that. Yeah, it's not an option anytime soon. Maybe the economic reality (population on the Island) and engineering have changed enough in 50 years to revisit it, but for now, we'll have to do with more ferries. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted December 14, 2023 Share Posted December 14, 2023 6 minutes ago, MattJVD said: Yeah, it's not an option anytime soon. Maybe the economic reality (population on the Island) and engineering have changed enough in 50 years to revisit it, but for now, we'll have to do with more ferries. Also, most of the residents on the island would prefer not to have a bridge link and become a suburb of Vancouver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted December 14, 2023 Share Posted December 14, 2023 11 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Also, most of the residents on the island would prefer not to have a bridge link and become a suburb of Vancouver. Except it wouldn't be a suburb of Vancouver - or at least, not in its present form. 25 miles between Courtenay and Powell River means roughly 40 km - and then there's the distance you'd need to bridge from Powell River to Vancouver, as well as the distance from wherever you are on the island to Courtenay. For comparables, Chilliwack to Vancouver is about 120km, Squamish to Vancouver is about 60km. Even if you were able to build a highway from Powell River to Vancouver in a straight line, that's about 125km. So even if you were to commute from Courtenay to Vancouver via a bridge that touched down in Powell River and a straight-line highway from the landing point to Vancouver, that's still 165(ish) kms. I don't know about you, but I don't think many people would be willing to do a four hour commute every day using such a route. Even Nanaimo to Vancouver would be about 60km of bridge, with the corresponding technical difficulties as explained by @MattJVD increasing the resulting cost - but then you'd have to add on the distance from wherever it is on the island to Nanaimo as part of the consideration. There'd have to be a hell of a lot of infrastructure upgrading before the island would be seriously considered for conversion to a Vancouver suburb, so they're safe on that account alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted December 14, 2023 Share Posted December 14, 2023 4 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said: Except it wouldn't be a suburb of Vancouver - or at least, not in its present form. 25 miles between Courtenay and Powell River means roughly 40 km - and then there's the distance you'd need to bridge from Powell River to Vancouver, as well as the distance from wherever you are on the island to Courtenay. For comparables, Chilliwack to Vancouver is about 120km, Squamish to Vancouver is about 60km. Even if you were able to build a highway from Powell River to Vancouver in a straight line, that's about 125km. So even if you were to commute from Courtenay to Vancouver via a bridge that touched down in Powell River and a straight-line highway from the landing point to Vancouver, that's still 165(ish) kms. I don't know about you, but I don't think many people would be willing to do a four hour commute every day using such a route. Even Nanaimo to Vancouver would be about 60km of bridge, with the corresponding technical difficulties as explained by @MattJVD increasing the resulting cost - but then you'd have to add on the distance from wherever it is on the island to Nanaimo as part of the consideration. There'd have to be a hell of a lot of infrastructure upgrading before the island would be seriously considered for conversion to a Vancouver suburb, so they're safe on that account alone. So then you'll still need ferries for the most popular route from Victoria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted December 14, 2023 Share Posted December 14, 2023 17 minutes ago, King Heffy said: So then you'll still need ferries for the most popular route from Victoria. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 So, the BC ndp are ramming through the biggest changes to land management ever. Crickets. https://bcwf.bc.ca/b-c-land-act-amendment-and-the-future-of-british-columbia/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnkNuk Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 2 hours ago, Bob Long said: So, the BC ndp are ramming through the biggest changes to land management ever. Crickets. https://bcwf.bc.ca/b-c-land-act-amendment-and-the-future-of-british-columbia/ I have no opinion on this because it's all new to me. But I'm confused by a couple of things in the article: "The government’s timeline for the consultation and the implementation of public land-use agreements is truly terrifying. The public engagement period on the required Land Act amendments ends March 31, 2024. The government intends to start drafting the amendments in February, nearly two months BEFORE the public consultation period ends. This is a sham. Clearly, the government has already made up its mind about the content of those bills and that the opinions of ordinary British Columbians don’t matter." Don't the ammendments have to be drafted before the public can comment on them? "The amendments under consideration will profoundly affect the ability of British Columbians to steward, access, and enjoy nearly every inch of the province for recreation and business, while delivering effective veto power, disregarding the concepts of natural justice and procedural fairness. " How do the authors know this if the ammendments haven't yet been drafted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 35 minutes ago, UnkNuk said: I have no opinion on this because it's all new to me. But I'm confused by a couple of things in the article: "The government’s timeline for the consultation and the implementation of public land-use agreements is truly terrifying. The public engagement period on the required Land Act amendments ends March 31, 2024. The government intends to start drafting the amendments in February, nearly two months BEFORE the public consultation period ends. This is a sham. Clearly, the government has already made up its mind about the content of those bills and that the opinions of ordinary British Columbians don’t matter." Don't the ammendments have to be drafted before the public can comment on them? "The amendments under consideration will profoundly affect the ability of British Columbians to steward, access, and enjoy nearly every inch of the province for recreation and business, while delivering effective veto power, disregarding the concepts of natural justice and procedural fairness. " How do the authors know this if the ammendments haven't yet been drafted? It's the timing. The NDP already knows what it will legislate. There's almost no time for the public to learn about it nor debate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnkNuk Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 5 minutes ago, Bob Long said: It's the timing. The NDP already knows what it will legislate. There's almost no time for the public to learn about it nor debate it. From the article: The government intends to start drafting the amendments in February, nearly two months BEFORE the public consultation period ends I may be misreading the article but it seems to me that the authors are upset that the government is going to write the ammendments before the consultations. But how can the public learn about or debate the ammendments if they haven't been written yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, UnkNuk said: From the article: The government intends to start drafting the amendments in February, nearly two months BEFORE the public consultation period ends I may be misreading the article but it seems to me that the authors are upset that the government is going to write the ammendments before the consultations. But how can the public learn about or debate the ammendments if they haven't been written yet? They can't, that's why they are upset. The legislation consultation period is already slated to end in March. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnkNuk Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 2 minutes ago, Bob Long said: They can't, that's why they are upset. The legislation consultation period is already slated to end in March. Hmmm...I'm probably misunderstanding something here, but let's try this again. The authors seem to be upset that the government is writing the ammendments before the public consultation on those ammendments begin. But how can the public comment or react to those ammendments if they haven't been written? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Just now, UnkNuk said: Hmmm...I'm probably misunderstanding something here, but let's try this again. The authors seem to be upset that the government is writing the ammendments before the public consultation on those ammendments begin. But how can the public comment or react to those ammendments if they haven't been written? The NDP is putting an extreme time limit on a sweeping piece of legislation. Isnt that clear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnkNuk Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 2 minutes ago, Bob Long said: The NDP is putting an extreme time limit on a sweeping piece of legislation. Isnt that clear? Not from the article. No. But I'm tired. Maybe it will be clearer tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, UnkNuk said: Not from the article. No. But I'm tired. Maybe it will be clearer tomorrow. Maybe this will help https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-bc-ndp-quietly-consult-sweeping-changes-managing-public-lands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 A series of smaller length bridges starting at Swartz Bay to Saltspring, then Salt Spring to Prevost, and from there to Galliano. On the east side of Galliano, build the new ferry terminal. This reduces the ferry trip by half, -effectively doubling the capacity to move people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnkNuk Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 14 hours ago, Bob Long said: Maybe this will help https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-bc-ndp-quietly-consult-sweeping-changes-managing-public-lands Yes, it does. Thank you. So do I have this right?: There are 204 First Nations in BC with varying claims to BC territory. And the provincial government is considering giving each of these First Nations a legal veto power on anything that happens on their respective claimed territory. Is this more or less correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Timely Flip Flop https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-john-rustads-big-flip-flop-undrip-bc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 2 hours ago, UnkNuk said: Yes, it does. Thank you. So do I have this right?: There are 204 First Nations in BC with varying claims to BC territory. And the provincial government is considering giving each of these First Nations a legal veto power on anything that happens on their respective claimed territory. Is this more or less correct? That's the concern, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 hour ago, bishopshodan said: Timely Flip Flop https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-john-rustads-big-flip-flop-undrip-bc Ramming through such potentially sweeping legislation has that effect. Why do it like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 50 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Ramming through such potentially sweeping legislation has that effect. Why do it like this? The article popped out to me as I have been doing some courses on Indigenous issues for work. This guy supported adopting UNDRIP, now doesn't. Not unlike his carbon tax support, as stated in the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnkNuk Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 A bit more: Why Land Act changes are causing angst in B.C. https://biv.com/article/2024/02/why-land-act-changes-are-causing-angst-bc and another: Bruce Pardy: B.C.'s plan to 'reconcile' by giving First Nations a veto on land use UNDRIP-inspired land law reforms are poised to turn province into an untenable host for mining, forestry and much more https://nationalpost.com/opinion/bruce-pardy-b-c-s-plan-to-reconcile-by-giving-first-nations-a-veto-on-land-use Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 7 minutes ago, UnkNuk said: A bit more: Why Land Act changes are causing angst in B.C. https://biv.com/article/2024/02/why-land-act-changes-are-causing-angst-bc and another: Bruce Pardy: B.C.'s plan to 'reconcile' by giving First Nations a veto on land use UNDRIP-inspired land law reforms are poised to turn province into an untenable host for mining, forestry and much more https://nationalpost.com/opinion/bruce-pardy-b-c-s-plan-to-reconcile-by-giving-first-nations-a-veto-on-land-use I've learned that BC has the most unceaded territory in Canada, 95% of the province. I dont know if this is the correct thing to do but giving the First Nations of a territory co-decision making seems appropriate to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.