Canada Line | Completed

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

there are competitive options getting downtown, the hostels all have their own shuttle services, the hotels have shuttles, the airport shuttle isn't that much and taxis are pretty cheap when split - most tourists pay for the transfers when they book their hotels

backpackers and employees will use it i guess - adding $2.50 to $3.75 fair isn't that bad really - won't people with passes be exempt from the upcharge anyway?

well now that I think about it I do believe that employees of YVR will be exempt and they should make a up a good chunck of the ridership I would think(at least thats what I remember). but i still think its a bad idea, $2.50 increase is a big difference from the reg fare.

all i know is that for me personally its enough to turn me off of the service, mind you I dont live right next to the Canada line and I dont exactly pay for parking at the airport either(for now).


edit: assuming this $2.50 goes to the airport i dont know why they dont tack it on to their airport improvement fee, it would make allot more sense.

[SpongeG]

lol but why would someone leave say downtown vancouver to go hang out in Richmond? lol i don't get it

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by cornholio

well now that I think about it I do believe that employees of YVR will be exempt and they should make a up a good chunck of the ridership I would think(at least thats what I remember). but i still think its a bad idea, $2.50 increase is a big difference from the reg fare.

all i know is that for me personally its enough to turn me off of the service, mind you I dont live right next to the Canada line and I dont exactly pay for parking at the airport either(for now).

do u expect to use it often though? paying a little extra a couple times a year isn't that bad

most people don't go that much do they? i go there to hang out with the other freaks at the end of the runway in their cars sometimes - i wouldn't change going there to the train since its not like i plan to go i just end up there when wandering

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

do u expect to use it often though? paying a little extra a couple times a year isn't that bad

most people don't go that much do they? i go there to hang out with the other freaks at the end of the runway in their cars sometimes - i wouldn't change going there to the train since its not like i plan to go i just end up there when wandering

not exactly but I suppose if I had no one to drop me off at the airport and had the time to kill(and not too much luggage) I would consider it over a taxi...it would probably be 35-40min from where I live vs 15-20min by taxi I would think and save me almost $20 for the loss of 20min and a small hassle(assuming I had the extra time and not to much luggage to drag around).

i dont know i think my point is that they should of tacked the costs on to their airport improvement fee so they can hit everyone and non locals where they will hardly notice it.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by cornholio

why would somone do that though when its quicker and cheaper driving, except for the peak of rush hour traffic which only lasts a little while.
sure the wear and tear on the vehicle probably makes it about the same and paying $3.50 for parking if you dont use the drop off zone or dont rip the parking machines off will probably make it about equal but its more convenient(plus unless you live next to the station there is absolutely no way it can compete time wise).

Im all for the buiding rapid transit but that $2.50 probably will tip the price to the point where I will never use the line. Thats $6 out of Vancouver assuming you make your trip in 90min (50min will be spent on the train not including waiting for it right of the bat if you leave waterfront, not including transfers to buses). Not to mention I can make it by car outside of rush hour traffic much faster to the airport.


oh and obviously your friend would also have to pay the fare...assuming you pay twice and he pays once thats $18...could almost catch a cab.
/rant

Yeah, but if you don't have a car.... a lot of people right along the line in Vancouver don't. I know a quite a few people who live downtown who don't even have a drivers license, let alone a car. I grew up rural, so even though I support transit, I need to drive, it's in my fiber. I like taking transit to avoid congestion (the bane of fun driving, and if it's not fun, then why drive).

I'm with you, I'll probably still drive to the airport most times. Heck, I would drive to the airport to pick up/drop off people even if transit was 100% free.

But, if it comes down to taxi vs C-Line, C-Line would win. Yes there are shuttles, and some are free, but the driver usually expects a tip, and you can't really tip someone a toonie (stupid coins). I don't like parking long term at the airport and if I'm not getting dropped off by family/friends I wouldn't take a taxi ever after the line opens. So the C-Line, even with add fare will still have it's place in my travel plans to the airport. If I was taking a flight by myself, I would take the C-Line, no hesitation.

I've only ever packed a carry on + laptop and I'm used to taking transit to the ferries. People complaining about taking luggage on the C-Line have obviously never ridden the 620/601 from the ferries, with luggage, when there is standing room only for an hour long ride. Haha, I did that once with a suitcase, laptop bag, and a set of golf clubs. Fortunately I know the "short cut" at Tsawwassen so I got to the bus first and had a seat. Now all they need is C-Line out to Tsawwassen and I'll be a happy camper (and LRT on the other side too).

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by cornholio

why would somone do that though when its quicker and cheaper driving, except for the peak of rush hour traffic which only lasts a little while..
/rant

Depends whether you have a car...

[CLC]

For me personally, if it comes down to taxi vs C-Line, C-Line would win too

Even though I don't live in walkable distance of Canada Line, I'm just one bus away (#49) for about 12 minutes, then another 12 minutes from 49th station to Airport , even to add 6 minute extra wait time, it is 30 minutes.

From my home, driving can be 18 - 35 minutes depends on traffic, so Canada Line gives me a comparable option in term of time.

Previously when I was unable to have anyone gave me a ride, I had to take the taxi, it is only becasue I know the bus combination is 1 hour and the crowded+always late #98 is formidable

[lightrail]

TransLink's cash crunch explains why it is scrambling to boost ridership on the Canada Line, using its buses to funnel riders to the new rapid transit line.

Because any other reason is not logical. It makes perfect sense to run competing express buses alongside the Canada Line and not feed buses into stations, because why would anybody want to transfer to a fast frequent subway line, when a slose bus caught in traffic can get you there three times slower than the train.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

there are competitive options getting downtown, the hostels all have their own shuttle services, the hotels have shuttles, the airport shuttle isn't that much and taxis are pretty cheap when split - most tourists pay for the transfers when they book their hotels

backpackers and employees will use it i guess - adding $2.50 to $3.75 fair isn't that bad really - won't people with passes be exempt from the upcharge anyway?

Europeans and Asians will use the train - that's what they're used to for getting to and from airports, so they'll look for it.

North American's will generally use a taxi, rent a car, or maybe the airport shuttle bus.

[WarrenC12]

What is the reason for the airport fare surcharge? As I understand it, this wasn't related to YVR's help in funding the line, so it's just a Translink cash grab? Did this come in part way through the project when they examined their revenue guarantees more closely and got worried?

If anything, make it another zone. This is simply too much confusion.

[SpongeG]

its only $2.50

its still a bargain compared to most cities and the alternatives

I doubt anywill will say screw this i am finding a bus alternative

agian unless everyone is a jesetter jetting ff every other week its not going to affect most people

I am sure people pay extra to go to Scotiabank theatre over the skanky empire one

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What is the reason for the airport fare surcharge? As I understand it, this wasn't related to YVR's help in funding the line, so it's just a Translink cash grab? Did this come in part way through the project when they examined their revenue guarantees more closely and got worried?

If anything, make it another zone. This is simply too much confusion.

There's going to be fewer people on the YVR segment but the same amount of trains. The cost of running all those trains has to be recouped somehow, and demand is fairly inelastic for one-off trips to the airport.

People keep calling it a "cash grab" and unfair, but I think it's much more fair that airport travelers pay the extra cost of their trip.

[metroXpress]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What is the reason for the airport fare surcharge? As I understand it, this wasn't related to YVR's help in funding the line, so it's just a Translink cash grab? Did this come in part way through the project when they examined their revenue guarantees more closely and got worried?

If anything, make it another zone. This is simply too much confusion.

I agree. But when the faregates come in, TransLink would be able to make the switch to distance based fares. That's the efficient way of doing it

[officedweller]

I also agree that making it Zone 3 would also be easier for passengers to understand.

[mr.x]

I am absolutely appalled by this, $600,000 for one lousy business...as if she lost that much money, yea right:




A rather smug face.

Former Cambie Street merchant granted $600,000 prior to appeal


Vancouver Sun
July 29, 2009 5:43 PM

VANCOUVER — Former Cambie Street merchant Susan Heyes will be getting the $600,000 that the court ordered be paid to her to compensate for damages her business faced during the Canada Line construction.

TransLink and its partners had asked the BC Court of Appeal to delay payment until after the appeal is heard, sometime later next year.

But the judge ruled in Heyes favour.

Heyes cried and hugged her daughter, Julia, and her friends after Court of Appeal Justice Edward Chiasson ruled that the $600,000 must be paid to her immediately.

Outside the courthouse, Heyes said she was “delighted’ by the decision.

“It’s very necessary to continue with my business because I’ve suffered enormous losses and I need to inject the money back into my company," she said.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge awarded Susan Heyes, the owner of Hazel & Co. maternity wear, $600,000 in damages for business loss during the Canada Line construction on Cambie Street between 2005 and 2008.

Heyes sued TransLink and its partners for compensation for business disruption caused by construction of the Canada Line rapid transit project. She claimed business interests had not been considered when the decision was made to go to a cut-and-cover model rather than a bored tunnel.

Justice Ian Pitfield ruled the cut-and-cover method constituted a legal nuisance for businesses.

Although he granted damages and found TransLink, Canada Line Rapid Transit and InTransitBC jointly liable, the judge dismissed claims of negligence, misrepresentation and nuisance against the defendants, which included the city of Vancouver, Canada and the attorney-general of B.C.

"Finally she's been vindicated by this judgment," Heyes' lawyer Cameron Ward said. "She tried everything to get compensation ... it was a difficult and vigorously defended case."

As for the appeal, which isn’t expected to go ahead until next year, Heyes said she expects another difficult fight.

Her lawyer Cameron Ward said even if Heyes wins at the Court of Appeal, TransLink and the companies involved in the public-private partnership can still ask for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The issue in the case are substantial. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield’s decision overturned a longstanding notion that any public projects done in the public good can not constitute a ‘nuisance’ in the legal sense.

If that is upheld, it means that for all future public-works projects not only in Vancouver but all of Canada, mitigation of nuisance and even paying compensation to anyone who is inconvenience by the project will have to be considered in the planning stages.

Because of that, Ward said it’s possible that the Supreme Court of Canada might want to take a look at the case.

If that happens, not only is Heyes looking at several more years of litigation, she’s facing several hundred thousand more in legal expenses.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by mr.x

I am absolutely appalled by this, $600,000 for one lousy business...as if she lost that much money, yea right:




A rather smug face.

Former Cambie Street merchant granted $600,000 prior to appeal


Vancouver Sun
July 29, 2009 5:43 PM

VANCOUVER — Former Cambie Street merchant Susan Heyes will be getting the $600,000 that the court ordered be paid to her to compensate for damages her business faced during the Canada Line construction.

TransLink and its partners had asked the BC Court of Appeal to delay payment until after the appeal is heard, sometime later next year.

But the judge ruled in Heyes favour.

Heyes cried and hugged her daughter, Julia, and her friends after Court of Appeal Justice Edward Chiasson ruled that the $600,000 must be paid to her immediately.

Outside the courthouse, Heyes said she was “delighted’ by the decision.

“It’s very necessary to continue with my business because I’ve suffered enormous losses and I need to inject the money back into my company," she said.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge awarded Susan Heyes, the owner of Hazel & Co. maternity wear, $600,000 in damages for business loss during the Canada Line construction on Cambie Street between 2005 and 2008.

Heyes sued TransLink and its partners for compensation for business disruption caused by construction of the Canada Line rapid transit project. She claimed business interests had not been considered when the decision was made to go to a cut-and-cover model rather than a bored tunnel.

Justice Ian Pitfield ruled the cut-and-cover method constituted a legal nuisance for businesses.

Although he granted damages and found TransLink, Canada Line Rapid Transit and InTransitBC jointly liable, the judge dismissed claims of negligence, misrepresentation and nuisance against the defendants, which included the city of Vancouver, Canada and the attorney-general of B.C.

"Finally she's been vindicated by this judgment," Heyes' lawyer Cameron Ward said. "She tried everything to get compensation ... it was a difficult and vigorously defended case."

As for the appeal, which isn’t expected to go ahead until next year, Heyes said she expects another difficult fight.

Her lawyer Cameron Ward said even if Heyes wins at the Court of Appeal, TransLink and the companies involved in the public-private partnership can still ask for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The issue in the case are substantial. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield’s decision overturned a longstanding notion that any public projects done in the public good can not constitute a ‘nuisance’ in the legal sense.

If that is upheld, it means that for all future public-works projects not only in Vancouver but all of Canada, mitigation of nuisance and even paying compensation to anyone who is inconvenience by the project will have to be considered in the planning stages.

Because of that, Ward said it’s possible that the Supreme Court of Canada might want to take a look at the case.

If that happens, not only is Heyes looking at several more years of litigation, she’s facing several hundred thousand more in legal expenses.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Wel, Translink only lost on the application not to pay until their appeal is heard by thr Court of Appeal. I still think the Court of Appeal will overturn the Supreme Court's decision and then she'll have to pay Translink back. The decision can't stand because it will cripple any infrastucture projects anywhere in Canada. Anything, even pavement repair in front of a business. Stay tuned. BTW - She looks like such a b*tch too in those pictures. Also, as taxpayers are now paying her, I really hope people will stop shopping there in protest.

[DKaz]

She didn't even LOSE money, she saw her profits drop from $300,000 a year to $100,000 a year! OMG shed a f**king tear for her!

/rant

[mr.x]

^ unbelievable.

She certainly does look like a b!tch in pictures....she also sounds like one if you've seen a tv interview.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ unbelievable.

She certainly does look like a b!tch in pictures....she also sounds like one if you've seen a tv interview.

Should go in and be a real pain in the ass customer. Spend a long time looking, make them help you find somethings, try everything on, make them ring it all up, then change your mind and walk out. Tell her she's got enough of our money and where she can shove it.

[mr.x]

Quite hard to believe that she sells $300,000 in baby clothes a year....sounds more like the case of a greedy b!tch.