Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[McPaul]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

one of london's airports (city airport with docklands) has service 6 times an hour - so about every 10 minutes - that's about par or just less than YVR and its a local train with all the stops - we really have nothing to complain about - its not like planes are landing constantly at the airport here

skytrain had an issue today at 22nd street around 3:45 it really slowed things up and the trains were packed

No kidding!! Leaving renfrew station east at 4:30 I had to wait 20 minutes and the train was more packed than I've ever seen on any route!!

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by Waders

TransLink given new powers to go after fare evaders

Source: CTV

I think this is long overdue.

I agree!

[st7860]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Yeah, that's a bit steep for most. Also why the buses will still run. $15 seems like a sweet spot for me.

In comparison (only express services shown and prices are approx.):
Tokyo (NRT) : $30 ( 36 min)
Osaka (KIX) : $30 ( 29 min)
London (LHR): $30 ( 15 min. )
London (LGW): $30 ( 30 min. )
Paris (CDG): $12 ( 30 min. )
New York (EWR) $12 (28 min)
New York (JFK) $12 (35 min.)
San Francisco (SFO) $8 (30 min.)
Seattle (SEA) $2.75 (33 min.)
Vancouver (YVR) $8.50 ( 19 min.)
Hong Kong (HKG) $13 (23 min.)

half an hour average and $20 ! lol. here if you buy a book of 10 tickets, it will cost you only $3.15 to get to downtown in the daytime or $2.10 at night, and the train comes every 6 to 10 minutes.


in other news, fare enforcement will be stronger

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/TransLink+crack+down+fare+evaders+decade/6580773/story.html

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Yeah, that's a bit steep for most. Also why the buses will still run. $15 seems like a sweet spot for me.

In comparison (only express services shown and prices are approx.):
Tokyo (NRT) : $30 ( 36 min)
Osaka (KIX) : $30 ( 29 min)
London (LHR): $30 ( 15 min. )
London (LGW): $30 ( 30 min. )
Paris (CDG): $12 ( 30 min. )
New York (EWR) $12 (28 min)
New York (JFK) $12 (35 min.)
San Francisco (SFO) $8 (30 min.)
Seattle (SEA) $2.75 (33 min.)
Vancouver (YVR) $8.50 ( 19 min.)
Hong Kong (HKG) $13 (23 min.)

In fact, all told Vancouver has one of the best deals in the list. Low travel time YVR-downtown (compared with nearly all the others) and a good price. Seattle is the cheapest, but has a longer trip, and also a more difficult SEA-TAC - transit connection, I believe (farther, more awkward or such)

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

In fact, all told Vancouver has one of the best deals in the list. Low travel time YVR-downtown (compared with nearly all the others) and a good price. Seattle is the cheapest, but has a longer trip, and also a more difficult SEA-TAC - transit connection, I believe (farther, more awkward or such)

Yes, Seattle's Link Station is on the other side of the parking garage. It's not too bad, a 400m walk, but it would've been nicer if it was closer to the airport and more visible. It's only 400m from the terminal, but that's not the center of the terminal, it's the end of it.

source

It would be like if YVR station was located inbetween the existing station and the future expansion station:

source: crazyjoeda

It's nice that train users get much closer than car users. Basically, anyone with mobility issues or the elderly are better off taking the train (unless they're being dropped off at the entrance)

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Yes, Seattle's Link Station is on the other side of the parking garage. It's not too bad, a 400m walk, but it would've been nicer if it was closer to the airport and more visible. It's only 400m from the terminal, but that's not the center of the terminal, it's the end of it.
...

It would be like if YVR station was located inbetween the existing station and the future expansion station:
...

It's nice that train users get much closer than car users. Basically, anyone with mobility issues or the elderly are better off taking the train (unless they're being dropped off at the entrance)

I think there is provision for a new station at the spot on your map beside the International terminal expansion. West of that spot is the cross-over and the point where the double tracks narrow down to a single track (similar to what happens south of Lansdowne station)

It was a missed opportunity to have the terminal station built as part of the new connector wing (between the old Domestic terminal and the new International terminal). Both the C-Line terminal and connector wing were being built at the same time, and both were designed by the same architect firm, so it should have been possible to include the C-Line terminal 'inside' the airport terminal.

Even if the train terminal was on the 4th or 5th floor of the connector as roof-top platforms & tracks, the mezzanine under the platforms would still have elevator and escalator access to all the arrivals and departures levels of the Domestic and International terminals.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Both the C-Line terminal and connector wing were being built at the same time, and both were designed by the same architect firm, so it should have been possible to include the C-Line terminal 'inside' the airport terminal.

What we got is close enough, I think - the enclosed bridge essentially accomplishes what you describe, and has both elevator and escalator access. Do they connect to the lower level? I'm not sure.

[memememe76]

Do people actually have a problem with the distance between the station and the airport? I find it quite close. In terms of proximity to its designated destination, I find the YVR station better than, say, Surrey Central, Metrotown, Brentwood, Lansdowne, and Lougheed.

I had a midnight flight to Toronto, and I took transit from Guildford to YVR. It cost me $2.50 (well, less than that since I have a book of 10 tickets). That is a damn good deal.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I think there is provision for a new station at the spot on your map beside the International terminal expansion. West of that spot is the cross-over and the point where the double tracks narrow down to a single track (similar to what happens south of Lansdowne station)

Yes, that's correct. Seattle's station is approximately equivalent to being at the same distance of that small circle of five red planes on that image. The "right" dot in that image is the approximate location of the future station along with future expansion. The double tracking was planned so that the future station will be on it. That's why there are two switches there.

It was a missed opportunity to have the terminal station built as part of the new connector wing (between the old Domestic terminal and the new International terminal). Both the C-Line terminal and connector wing were being built at the same time, and both were designed by the same architect firm, so it should have been possible to include the C-Line terminal 'inside' the airport terminal.

I felt the same way when I saw the plans, but now I think it would greatly complicate any future airport renovation. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, being part of the connector terminal would actually make it further away from the international and US terminal. It's orientated now so that it's built across the terminal with exits on each end.

I also like the way the station is visible when leaving or arriving. It announces its presence very well and isn't hidden from view.

[SpongeG]

has anyone taken the trek at heathrow to the picadilly line? want to talk about long

the train was so packed today around 4:30 - no word on twitter why - people were wondering where the trains were finally a short 4-car showed up at burrard which was already pretty much packed and people squeezed on - every platfrom (east bound) after that was packed with people who didn't look too happy

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

It was a missed opportunity to have the terminal station built as part of the new connector wing (between the old Domestic terminal and the new International terminal). Both the C-Line terminal and connector wing were being built at the same time, and both were designed by the same architect firm, so it should have been possible to include the C-Line terminal 'inside' the airport terminal.

Even if the train terminal was on the 4th or 5th floor of the connector as roof-top platforms & tracks, the mezzanine under the platforms would still have elevator and escalator access to all the arrivals and departures levels of the Domestic and International terminals.

I suspect that an "internal" station would create a lot more congestion within the terminal building than the current design. The way it's currently designed, domestic passengers exit the terminal at the Link Building and international passengers exit mid-building. That spreads the load a bit. It also prevents the terminal from having a claustrophobic "basement" feeling.

[SpongeG]

it's so close - i don't see how it could be any closer

[Rational Plan3]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

one of london's airports (city airport with docklands) has service 6 times an hour - so about every 10 minutes - that's about par or just less than YVR and its a local train with all the stops - we really have nothing to complain about - its not like planes are landing constantly at the airport here

That's not bad for an airport with 3 million passengers.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

has anyone taken the trek at heathrow to the picadilly line? want to talk about long

it's not that bad. It's 48 minutes from Piccadilly circus to Heathrow T4. And the price is less than £3 off-peak and weekends for zones 1-6, compared to £19 for the Heathrow Express.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3

That's not bad for an airport with 3 million passengers.

City Airport is more than sufficiently served. It's a very small airport and mainly caters to business travelers from places like Paris, Zurich, Geneva, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, etc.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by galeforcewinds

City Airport is more than sufficiently served. It's a very small airport and mainly caters to business travelers from places like Paris, Zurich, Geneva, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, etc.

Which is why it's so well served. The #1 destination is Zurich. financial hub... meet banking hub.

It also doesn't hurt that it's within the city's inner ring road itself.
edit: Wiki image


That makes it so it's even inside the congestion charge zone.

In Vancouver's context, it would be like having a business airport on false creek flats.

So yeah, it's well served.

Then again, Toronto City airport doesn't have transit to it, despite it almost being within walking distance of downtown. That airport is perfect for an extension of the tram, being that there are strict regulations regarding cars on the island.

I know there has been politics in the past regarding access to it, though.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by galeforcewinds

it's not that bad. It's 48 minutes from Piccadilly circus to Heathrow T4. And the price is less than £3 off-peak and weekends for zones 1-6, compared to £19 for the Heathrow Express.

I believe he's talking about the trek from the station to the actual terminal. 48 minutes is just to the station, correct?

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by galeforcewinds

it's not that bad. It's 48 minutes from Piccadilly circus to Heathrow T4. And the price is less than £3 off-peak and weekends for zones 1-6, compared to £19 for the Heathrow Express.

i mean within the airport - people complaining about getting from yvr terminal to the train, compared to heathrow its a hop skip and a jump here

[queetz@home]

A very interesting article about Langley's greviances on the lack of transit expansion South of the Fraser.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...township-not-district-12/article2431445/

Gotta admit, she does have a point regarding the Burnaby mayor which we all love to hate...

She refers to what she calls “a booming little empire sitting in Burnaby,” which, if I were to guess, would be the Metro Vancouver Board or, to continue the analogy, The Capitol, whose wealth and success is fuelled by the industry and forced labour in the surrounding districts.

See how this all fits?

Wait, it gets better.

At the centre of it all sits a hegemonic leader – in this analogy played by Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan.

Mr. Corrigan, you see, has been less than sympathetic about the plight of those in the districts beyond, especially when it comes to the lack of transit.

For Ms. Richter, the straw that broke the camel's back, as she puts it, were the comments Mr. Corrigan made to a local Langley newspaper, comments she was happy to read to me verbatim after quoting source and page number.

“Langley politicians have themselves to blame for pushing the province to expand the Highway 1 freeway, which Metro planners warned would undercut future demand for transit. Langley residents are now absurdly complaining about both the tolls as well as the lack of transit, but they wanted the bridges and the roads and now they say they want transit too.”

Councillor Richter's response prompts her to abandon her first metaphor, and move on to the French Revolution. “I mean, this Marie Antoinette attitude to the outlying areas in Metro Vancouver is just simply no longer tolerable. The arrogance has reached a level where it has to cease and desist. We don't need cartels, and we certainly don't need, I think, a Vancouver-Burnaby ‘let them eat cake’ cartel.”

Clearly, the councillor is upset, and when it comes to transit services, she has a legitimate grievance. People who live south of the Fraser will tell you transit service there is woefully inadequate. But residents there pay the same premium at the pump borne by residents of Vancouver or Burnaby, which, combined, have 31 rapid transit stations and frequent bus service.

[Gordon]

Once the New Port mnn Bridge opens can they just run a current bus that will use the new Park and Ride usng the same route that the Rapid Bus would use until there is funding fro the Rapid Bus.

Is there Currently a HOV lane on Highway #1 from Langley to the port mann bridge?