HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #11961  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2017, 2:11 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,401
True, but just how much easier it would have been for them to put the small stretch underground when building it vs. now that the train runs every 7 minutes. I am sure it will be 5x more expensive now.
     
     
  #11962  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2017, 2:15 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
True, but just how much easier it would have been for them to put the small stretch underground when building it vs. now that the train runs every 7 minutes. I am sure it will be 5x more expensive now.
The plan is to elevate the taxiway...
     
     
  #11963  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2017, 2:26 AM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,401
Oh wow. How gentle the incline needs to be for planes be able to cross over?
     
     
  #11964  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2017, 5:01 AM
Spork's Avatar
Spork Spork is offline
Shoebox Dweller
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Oh wow. How gentle the incline needs to be for planes be able to cross over?
Looks like 3% grade at worst, 1.5% is probably desired.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/25001/what-is-the-maximum-slope-for-taxiing-aircraft
     
     
  #11965  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2017, 8:18 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Going back to the 4th runway...

How is building the new runway to the south being the cheaper option that building the foreshore runway? They will have to demolish the whole south terminal and all buildings around it vs. fill in the shallow bay and pave it over. I don't get it.
In 2007:

Foreshore Runway $1.2 billion dollars
South Parallel: $300 million

https://www.straight.com/article-110575/yvr
     
     
  #11966  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2017, 8:42 AM
Marshal Marshal is offline
perhaps . . .
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Going back to the 4th runway...

How is building the new runway to the south being the cheaper option that building the foreshore runway? They will have to demolish the whole south terminal and all buildings around it vs. fill in the shallow bay and pave it over. I don't get it.

I have also wondered how would the new north-south taxiway be implemented? They would have to place both the road and Canada Line underground to accommodate for planes moving across. Strange that such wasn't considered when Canada Line was built not-so-long-ago. Another lack of foresight that is so common in Metro Vancouver.

Considering how much Richmond benefits from YVR being on their soil, one would think they understand the benefits of letting the airport grow. Building generic condos is just temporary income for the city vs. a global hub.

A few things:
The photo you show is not for what you are talking about. It illustrates the Foreshore runway (to be built over completely unstable delta mudflats - it costs more than most think to make a runway on typical ground due to the weight of planes and the forces of acceleration/deceleration and the stopping of such a large mass with downward momentum); but the south parallel in this photo is not a major runway but a parallel replacement for the current cross wind runway. The photo must be old or they are thinking differently than a few years ago (which I doubt, given the way operations are developing.)

And . . . it is not a lack of forsight by Metro to have not put the Canada Line in a trench there. Its hard-nosed reality: who would responsibly spend millions to accomodate a possible development 20-30 or even 40 years down the road. Especially one that was a proposal not 100% committed to. And lastly, blaming Metro is curious, since they have little to do with it. The planning of the airport leg of Canada Line would have been driven by the airport authority. If you need to blame, target the right guy; although, as I said, no authority would have spent the money gambling on a future scenario.

Lastly, Richmond is like any jurisdiction, and rightly so - their job is to maximize things according to their own plans. Richmond (and yes, like so many they have a stupid group running the municipal gov't) knows all too well the economic and other benefits it gets from 'its' airport. They have done a lot of things over the years to prove it. They also know it will grow regardless (no-one dreams anymore of a 2nd major airport in the valley), so they need to serve their citizens and try to be a source of pressure within the process. It's like New West. They apply pressure against road enlargement, and they know its going to come anyway, but in doing so they get the most they can while it is planned, figured out, and implemented.

Damn, almost forgot: tearing down all those cheap buildings in the south area would not be much of a cost item compared to others . . . might even be seen as an opportunity to modernize a number of functions.
     
     
  #11967  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2017, 9:08 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spork View Post
Diagrams had it 0.93 to 1.12



http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=87953&page=379

I don't think building a bridge is that vastly more expensive versus trying to tunnel 12 lanes of traffic/Canada Line for 1-2KM including the disruption during construction to bury all those roads.

Engineering for tunnels under the Calgary airport runways (might not be as over engineered for a taxiway):

Quote:
The six-lane tunnel under the runway is 620 metres long. Also, two taxiway underpasses are 32 metres wide by 61 metres long and 13 metres wide by 166 metres long.
Determining structural design loads for the tunnel and underpasses was a challenge since this information is not part of Canadian codes and standards, and few structures are exposed to such high loads. The use of complex finite element analysis models allowed for the design of reinforced concrete structures that will support the worst case static and dynamic loading scenarios, including the Airbus A380’s 600 tonne loading. More than 85,000 cubic metres of concrete and 16,000 tonnes of reinforcing steel were used to build the structures.
http://www.canadianconsultingengineer.co...international-airport-runway-and-tunnel/
     
     
  #11968  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2017, 3:13 PM
thenoflyzone thenoflyzone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 4,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Going back to the 4th runway...

How is building the new runway to the south being the cheaper option that building the foreshore runway? They will have to demolish the whole south terminal and all buildings around it vs. fill in the shallow bay and pave it over. I don't get it.
Probably because building a man made island and putting a runway on it costs much more than demolishing some buildings and paving over it.
     
     
  #11969  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2017, 5:54 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Oh wow. How gentle the incline needs to be for planes be able to cross over?
Whatever it is... it was taken into account when they built the Canada Line and specifically planned to accommodate this runway. IOW, not a problem.
     
     
  #11970  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2017, 7:29 PM
excel excel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,484
Jetlines back in the news.

New ultra-low-cost airline Canada Jetlines to fly out of Hamilton

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/75503...-canada-jetlines-to-fly-out-of-hamilton/
     
     
  #11971  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2017, 1:18 PM
Johnny Aussie's Avatar
Johnny Aussie Johnny Aussie is offline
G'day
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Posts: 4,464
AC rouge increasing DUB

Yet another bump to YVR-Europe next summer.

YVR-DUB increasing from 3 to 5 weekly.

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2017-09-...ces-to-Ireland-from-Toronto-and-Montreal
     
     
  #11972  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2017, 4:35 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,286
That's a lot of new service to Ireland.
     
     
  #11973  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2017, 6:26 PM
thenoflyzone thenoflyzone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 4,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325 View Post
That's a lot of new service to Ireland.
Technically, YYZ-DUB is a reduction in service, as the route will go daily A333 next summer, down from 11x weekly 767 this summer.

As for YVR-DUB, the route was supposed to be 4x weekly this summer, but plans got shelved. Let's see if the increase for 5x weekly will remain for next summer.

YUL-DUB and YYZ-SNN are excellent routes for the 737-8.
     
     
  #11974  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
CareerShow CareerShow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie View Post
Yet another bump to YVR-Europe next summer.

YVR-DUB increasing from 3 to 5 weekly.

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2017-09-...ces-to-Ireland-from-Toronto-and-Montreal
Is YVR switching to mainline as well? That would be a much appreciated upgrade in service.
     
     
  #11975  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2017, 8:38 PM
Johnny Aussie's Avatar
Johnny Aussie Johnny Aussie is offline
G'day
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Posts: 4,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoflyzone View Post
As for YVR-DUB, the route was supposed to be 4x weekly this summer, but plans got shelved. Let's see if the increase for 5x weekly will remain for next year.
Technically the 4th weekly was just a filing and not an announced 4 weekly. They switched the operating base which was going to be through YYZ but then ended up sharing with NGO while YVR-LGW rotated through YYZ.

This 5 weekly is actually announced. And the route is doing well. Obviously well enough to increase the route 67%.

This solves the mystery of the missing LGW capacity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CareerShow View Post
Is YVR switching to mainline as well? That would be a much appreciated upgrade in service.
Nope it's sticking to rouge. It's a good fit for low yielding and more VFR.
     
     
  #11976  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2017, 9:57 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 13,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoflyzone View Post
They can operate 2 MNL-Canada-U.S routes, with a max of 4 weekly flights each, max 50% of aircraft seats sold between Canada-U.S.

So theoretically, yes, they can launch MNL-YVR-MIA, max 4 weekly.

However, YVR-MIA is nowhere near as large as YVR-NYC. Meaning the plane will be full of florida-MNL traffic. Very low yielding.
Sure but from what I've heard the YVR-NYC business PR manages to pick up is not the high yielding stuff either. Not surprising since One World customers will take CX, Skyteam will take Delta and Star Alliance will take Air Canada. PR is left with the scraps and their ticket prices (especially J) reflect that.

With that said I don't think they will go to MIA either. I think they will either do:

MNL-YVR-ORD
or
MNL-YVR-IAH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie View Post
Technically the 4th weekly was just a filing and not an announced 4 weekly. They switched the operating base which was going to be through YYZ but then ended up sharing with NGO while YVR-LGW rotated through YYZ.

This 5 weekly is actually announced. And the route is doing well. Obviously well enough to increase the route 67%.

This solves the mystery of the missing LGW capacity.
So 3xPW LGW replaced with 2xPW DUB. Does this mean there is a missing cycle or is it just how the timing worked out with the YYZ shuffle the plane used to do?

Either way great news, hopefully in a few years the route is strong enough to go daily.
     
     
  #11977  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 12:29 AM
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,626
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seattle-vancouver-seaplane-1.4288823

Not YVR related, but the Harbour airport this time. Seems like the best thread to put it in though.
     
     
  #11978  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 6:43 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by red-paladin View Post
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seattle-vancouver-seaplane-1.4288823

Not YVR related, but the Harbour airport this time. Seems like the best thread to put it in though.
Interesting... that would be really cool IMO... but is there space for a pre-clearance facility at the Convention Centre seaplane terminal? I don't recall any special provisions being made for such... I wonder how they're going to solve that.
     
     
  #11979  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 6:47 AM
casper's Avatar
casper casper is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 12,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millennium2002 View Post
Interesting... that would be really cool IMO... but is there space for a pre-clearance facility at the Convention Centre seaplane terminal? I don't recall any special provisions being made for such... I wonder how they're going to solve that.
Sea planes operate between downtown Victoria and Seattle. I have never done that trip, but I don't think they do pre-clearance.

The Victoria airport also does not do pre-clearance. The ferries from Victoria to the US do pre-clearance. The Vancouver cruise ship terminal also has US pre-clearance for the ships heading to Alaska.
     
     
  #11980  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2017, 6:50 AM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,045
Information Request

TWOV Transit Without Visa

Back in 2013 and 2014, this was one hot topic at YVR (and YYZ, also). It also seemed imminent at that time.
*
What has happened since then? Has TWOV been cancelled, postponed, or is it in effect yet?
I have heard nothing about it for so long that I am wondering if it has been shelved indefinitely or what.
Or am I mistaken, and is it in effect? Anybody knowledgeable on this who can provide an answer, could I ask your support?
This is a major step for YVR - and YYZ - and I'd like to know where we are at with it. Thank you very much.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:41 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.