Trillium Line (O-Train) Updates

[McC]

The "add fare" on Canada Line trips to YVR applies only to single tickets; so your example of an an employee commuting to work at the airport would be exempt with the purchase of a pre-paid pass.

Who pays the new Canada LineYVR AddFare?
Canada Line customers travelling from YVRAirport, Sea Island Centre and Templeton
stations to Bridgeport Station or beyond, who
buy their fare zone ticket from a Ticket Vending
Machine using cash, debit card or credit card
must pay the $5.00 Canada Line YVR AddFare.
This includes concession (seniors and students)
fares. Children under the age of 5 can ride transit
for free and are not subject to the YVR AddFare.

Is there a form of payment that is exempt from the Canada Line YVR AddFare?
Customers who use prepaid fares such as
DayPasses, Monthly FareCards, FareSaver
tickets, West Coast Express weekly and 28-
day passes, U-Passes, Employer Passes and
Government Bus Passes are exempt from the
Canada Line YVR AddFare.

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/docu...are%20faq.ashx

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by McC

The "add fare" on Canada Line trips to YVR applies only to single tickets; so your example of an an employee commuting to work at the airport would be exempt with the purchase of a pre-paid pass.

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/docu...are%20faq.ashx

Thank you for clarifying the fares on the Canada Line.

[lrt's friend]

If we wish to have buy in from the airport for an O-Train connection, there is going to be a need for a private-public partnership. There are going to conditions to get money from the airport authority.

1. The rail line needs to connect directly to downtown to make sure that enough incoming air passengers will use it.

2. There will be a premium fare as in other cities in order to repay their investment.

Ottawa does not seem to have the vision to accomplish this or to even plan for this in the future. I can see it now. There will be another sole sourcing controversy.

[S-Man]

In all fairness, many of Ottawa's 'sole-sourcing controversies' are made controversial by people not liking the overall plan.

And if a P3 is what it takes to get service to the airport, I wouldn't trust it less than the city's 'sole-source-with-us-or-face-the-consequences'' transit card deal with the government body Metrolinx - what a perfect example of an on-time, on-budget, user-friendly initiative that was.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

They charge a premium fare of $9.00 on it though if you don't have a pass.

Technically it's not a premium fare, but a regular 24hours day pass.

[J.OT13]

I can't see a sole source controversy relating to an airport link. First off, the airport is owned by Transport Canada, though the airport is managed by a private airport authority (or something to that effect). Also, there is only one international airport.

If I were the airport authority, I would not invest a whole lot of money to have an O-Train link as it currently exists, but I would be ready to invest in a direct to downtown link. At a bare minimum, I would expect the airport to at least pay for its own station, integrated in the airport terminal. Having a different fare system for out of town tourists would also be expected (7.95$ is regular price for a day pass, so 10$ with the airport getting that extra 2.05$).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Part of this is our own fault. This requires that we seriously consider creating a transit suburb. We voted big time against that in the 2006 election. We cannot build a new Glebe, Westboro or Sandy Hill because these were all streetcar suburbs, where they were mostly designed to move people by transit. Nowadays, everything new is geared towards moving people by car. We end up with roads being the centre of all development, and complete segregation of uses and poor design, again centred on the car, that are both anti-transit and anti-pedestrian. The result is the need of a car to do almost everything in day to day life. The public needs a completely new mindset as do our politicians and urban planners. I do not see this changing anytime soon. Even if we tried, this will be perceived as giving a specific neighbourhood and developer preferential treatment. We saw all of these comments with Riverside South.

You can move people by car in a traditional street-car style built form.

The city can step in and stop approving DonMillsian suburbs. They just don't have the nads to do it.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The blame lies on current zoning by-laws. It is virtually impossible to build a house without a parking spot.

You can build a house with all of the parking spots, and still have a development laid out in a grid or semi-grid form that can evolve over time and support other land uses.

The fundamental problem is that we are still approving stupid curlicue subdivisions.

We need to stop doing that.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Define "very good transit service". Sure we have diesel-spewing buses running through Tunney's Pasture and the transitway trench every 5 minutes during rush hour, but we can't get on most of them, and if we do we won't get a seat because they're all taken by commuters from farther out. Ironically we pay higher property taxes to be closer to transit (therefore a higher transit levy)

Isn't the transit levy a flat rate within the urban transit area?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

All I can say is the direction of public transit has never been clearer in this city. We now know what is scheduled to be built for the next couple of decades and it is an obvious path to higher capacity. At this point, if transit and LRT service are that important to you, make the choice and live closer to it rather than expecting it to come to you.

I chose to live close to it.

The city rewarded me by (A) cancelling the plans for rail-based transit in my corner of the city until long after I'll be dead, and (B) slashing the frequency and capacity of bus service in a heavily-transit-dependent neighbourhood to satisfy the gentry in Westboro who didn't like sharing buses.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

You can move people by car in a traditional street-car style built form.

The city can step in and stop approving DonMillsian suburbs. They just don't have the nads to do it.

Only if you are willing to extend transit service to a neighbourhood built in that manner. That is part of the problem. We do not want to do that.

As far as not approving suburbs, I doubt that this would be legal. I also think that city growth cannot all be achieved by intensification alone without causing great upheaval in many parts of the city and without causing the cost of housing to skyrocket because of steep increases in the cost of developable land. This would knock a lot of people out of the housing market. I see a lot of unintended and undesireable consequences of just stop building new subdivisions on the fringe. I am sure the developer community would be suing the city like crazy. Lansdowne Park would be a walk in the park by comparison.

[lrt's friend]

The comment about higher taxes paid by those in Westboro also supports my comment about the affordability of housing in areas presently near rapid transit. It is hard to prevent housing prices from going up near rapid transit but it sadly points out the dilemma of offering transit where people need it the most, ie those of lower income. Those people will be pushed away from rapid transit corridors by ritzy condos to areas which will be vulnerable to service cuts as service is directed mainly to the rapid transit corridors. This already has happened over the years as the Transitways were developed and will be re-inforced by LRT. After all, the cost of LRT will be paid by service cuts on the bus network. That has been repeated again and again.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Bleh.... Doesn't mean it can't re-appear in the 2013 update of the TMP, right ; - P.

Which 2013 update? March, August, or November?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Only if you are willing to extend transit service to a neighbourhood built in that manner. That is part of the problem. We do not want to do that.

No.

With or without extending the transit, we can stop building donmillsy. The two do not have to be linked.

As far as not approving suburbs, I doubt that this would be legal.

The city has the power to approve, or disapprove, the street layout.

Perfectly legal.

It keeps approving suburban crap, then every five years revises its pointless offical plan, at great expense, with a lot of hand-wringing about how much more suburban crap has been built in the interim.

I also think that city growth cannot all be achieved by intensification alone

without causing great upheaval in many parts of the city

Upheaval? What, are we going to deport some Acadians or something?

I see a lot of unintended and undesireable consequences of just stop building new subdivisions on the fringe.

Indeed. But that's an argument best directed at someone who's arguing for stopping building new subdivisions.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Another comment noted the premium fare in Montreal, which will also apply to the new train to start operating out of Pearson in Toronto. Isn't a premium fare charged on the Canada Line also at Vancouver Airport? Note all are direct to downtown services.

This is fine to charge extra to occasional visitors as it is competing with taxis and limousine services but it is a pretty steep fare to get airport employees to use it on a daily basis. At $9.00 a pop, that is something like $400 per month. Who can afford this kind of cost for commuting alone? I can't.

We will not be able to charge a premium fare as an O-Train extension will not be running downtown. Once Route 97 stops running downtown with the opening of the Confederation Line, won't this make airport transit much less attractive? Direct service to downtown hotels is critical to make it attractive to incoming tourists and business travellers. Who wants to face confusing transfers in an unfamiliar city. I used BART in San Fransisco from the airport because it went straight downtown.

Confusing transferS? No. One transfer, the only train transfer possible. Yes, BART goes downtown in San Francisco, but not to all parts of downtown San Francisco you may want to go to.

London, UK has a rail connection to every airport, and is connected to a network that has connections across the city.

Obviously direct service is preferable, but if not possible RIGHT NOW, a single rail connection is still superior to a BUS for most people, because buses are "flexible" so you're never entirely sure where they're going. Whereas a train is a more legible and permanent thing, which leads to confidence that someone is going in the right direction.

[acottawa]

This all seems like a solution in search of a problem. YOW has one of the most straightforward ground transportation arrangements in the world - you pick up your bags, walk straight out the door (stopping at the information booth if necessary) to the left are taxis that will get you downtown in 15 minutes, usually for under $30, to the right is a bus that will get you downtown in 25 minutes for $3, or straight ahead you can see the car rental signs and well-marked parkways will get you downtown quickly too.

It is hard to justify a multi-billion investment for a rail link for an airport with 4 million passengers (about 10% of YYZ), especially when existing ground transportation is good and there is no major sporting event planned. Maybe some future o-train expansion will create an opportunity to build an affordable airport spur, but until then the current arrangement is quite good.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by gjhall

Confusing transferS? No. One transfer, the only train transfer possible. Yes, BART goes downtown in San Francisco, but not to all parts of downtown San Francisco you may want to go to.

London, UK has a rail connection to every airport, and is connected to a network that has connections across the city.

Obviously direct service is preferable, but if not possible RIGHT NOW, a single rail connection is still superior to a BUS for most people, because buses are "flexible" so you're never entirely sure where they're going. Whereas a train is a more legible and permanent thing, which leads to confidence that someone is going in the right direction.

BART goes right under Market Street. I don't know how more central that can be in San Francisco. We can't compare Ottawa with London, a city maybe ten times the size.

An extension of the O-Train to the airport won't be happening anytime soon. Surely, we can have the downtown connection ready by the time we finally build to the airport. Let's face it, if it isn't ready then, the downtown connection will never be built. That appears to be in the cards.

I don't get this rail bias. It may help with long-term intensification, but a one time visitor? What that person is looking for is a simple trip to the destination. If the service is well explained at the airport, it doesn't matter the mode. Right now, Bayview is not the best place to transfer for a stranger to the city. It will get better but it will remain pretty remote for the foreseeable future. I think the viability of an airport extension has to consider maximizing the market for the service. As long as we continue to believe a transfer is OK, we will continue to compromise the viability of the extension. Let's face it, most people don't like transfers and it will make it very difficult to justify a premium fare.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This all seems like a solution in search of a problem. YOW has one of the most straightforward ground transportation arrangements in the world - you pick up your bags, walk straight out the door (stopping at the information booth if necessary) to the left are taxis that will get you downtown in 15 minutes, usually for under $30, to the right is a bus that will get you downtown in 25 minutes for $3, or straight ahead you can see the car rental signs and well-marked parkways will get you downtown quickly too.

It is hard to justify a multi-billion investment for a rail link for an airport with 4 million passengers (about 10% of YYZ), especially when existing ground transportation is good and there is no major sporting event planned. Maybe some future o-train expansion will create an opportunity to build an affordable airport spur, but until then the current arrangement is quite good.

Exactly correct. If a $50 million + investment is made for an airport spur, it better deliver better service than the current arrangement. Too many of us are willing to accept less just to have rail. This is why, it was not considered before. Delivering service to thousands of local taxpayers on a daily basis has to be a higher priority.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Which 2013 update? March, August, or November?

Mmm... I believe it's scheduled to come out this month.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Mmm... I believe it's scheduled to come out this month.

I know, I know - was a comment on the frequency with which Ottawa revises its "long-term" plans on everything.