Evan Woolley's motion to reconsider Flames Arena funding fails 4-11

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by getbak

A while ago, I got annoyed by people acting like Calgary is the only city in the world without a rail link to its airport, so I did some research. This post is almost 2 years old now, so I don't know if any of the information has changed or not, but it still gives you an idea of how (un)common it is to have rail links to a city's airport in North America...

I have rode the rail lines in Seattle and Dallas and neither was well used. Seattle goes into some rough off track areas on its way to downtown. The one from Dallas is even worse and it comes out at Terminal 3 which requires a long shuttle to one of the main terminals. Yeah those are both cheap...but far from convenient.

Given how lousy Canadians are at building infastructure this shouldn't be a very serious consideration in Calgary for a long time. YYC is very close to Downtown as well. Far better ways to use public money than this.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I have rode the rail lines in Seattle and Dallas and neither was well used. Seattle goes into some rough off track areas on its way to downtown. The one from Dallas is even worse and it comes out at Terminal 3 which requires a long shuttle to one of the main terminals. Yeah those are both cheap...but far from convenient.

Given how lousy Canadians are at building infastructure this shouldn't be a very serious consideration in Calgary for a long time. YYC is very close to Downtown as well. Far better ways to use public money than this.

I have ridden the rail line from SeaTac to downtown Seattle many times and found it incredibly convenient and don’t recall the rough areas you mention. Staying close to the airport and taking that train is a great way to see Seattle IMO.

Calgary is smaller and airport is closer for sure but I wish every city had this.

[Locke]

On another note though, is this deal now official? Has it been signed? Are we done with Civic meddling?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by getbak

A while ago, I got annoyed by people acting like Calgary is the only city in the world without a rail link to its airport, so I did some research. This post is almost 2 years old now, so I don't know if any of the information has changed or not, but it still gives you an idea of how (un)common it is to have rail links to a city's airport in North America...

With all due respect, that pst seems to suggest that rail links are common. I’m also not sure why Vancouver isn’t on the list, and I love its rail link (including for business travel). Only 4 out of 15 don’t have a link (not counting LA’s because its planned). Vegas doesn’t need one - it doesn’t have rail anywhere else anyway. Same with Orlando. Tourist destinations typically involve bags anyway, especially Orlando, so taxis and Ubers are better. Houston would be a monster to connect.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by rage2

I hit up games at MSG whenever I’m in NYC and you can easily meet up with friends on the opposite side during intermission. By far the most efficient arena I’ve been to in terms of moving around, getting food/drinks and bathrooms.

The notable, was there during Fashion week, and we couldn't navigate to see friends in Nosebleeds from us in the lower bowl. Escalators are handy though.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Locke

On another note though, is this deal now official? Has it been signed? Are we done with Civic meddling?

The various land exchange, parking and cost share agreements have been advanced significantly.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

With all due respect, that pst seems to suggest that rail links are common. I’m also not sure why Vancouver isn’t on the list, and I love its rail link (including for business travel). Only 4 out of 15 don’t have a link (not counting LA’s because its planned). Vegas doesn’t need one - it doesn’t have rail anywhere else anyway. Same with Orlando. Tourist destinations typically involve bags anyway, especially Orlando, so taxis and Ubers are better. Houston would be a monster to connect.

Vancouver is not one of the busiest airports. Canada is a minnow with one metro area in the top 100 in the world. For the most part it's a very small number of people trying to move about. Hence why some of these high capital transportation investments really are not offering enough value.

Than factor in how terribly it gets designed. I have seen two projects on the Edmonton valley line LRT and both are double the cost and will be triple the time to complete due to how terrible the engineering and srchitectural work was.

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Vancouver is not one of the busiest airports. Canada is a minnow with one metro area in the top 100 in the world. For the most part it's a very small number of people trying to move about. Hence why some of these high capital transportation investments really are not offering enough value.

Than factor in how terribly it gets designed. I have seen two projects on the Edmonton valley line LRT and both are double the cost and will be triple the time to complete due to how terrible the engineering and srchitectural work was.

And Vancouver was able to build that because of the Olympics.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Vancouver is not one of the busiest airports. Canada is a minnow with one metro area in the top 100 in the world. For the most part it's a very small number of people trying to move about. Hence why some of these high capital transportation investments really are not offering enough value.

Than factor in how terribly it gets designed. I have seen two projects on the Edmonton valley line LRT and both are double the cost and will be triple the time to complete due to how terrible the engineering and srchitectural work was.

Vancouver is a very busy airport, due to Asian traffic. But the business of airports doesn’t mean everyone is staying there, if they are hubs.

I have no idea about value. But they certainly are good to have, if done right. Next time I go to NYC I am seriously thinking about using the train, because taxis and Ubers are a pain in the ass from JFK.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

With all due respect, that pst seems to suggest that rail links are common. I’m also not sure why Vancouver isn’t on the list, and I love its rail link (including for business travel). Only 4 out of 15 don’t have a link (not counting LA’s because its planned). Vegas doesn’t need one - it doesn’t have rail anywhere else anyway. Same with Orlando. Tourist destinations typically involve bags anyway, especially Orlando, so taxis and Ubers are better. Houston would be a monster to connect.

Vancouver isn't on there because it's not one of the 15 busiest airports in North America (it was 25th the last two years -- 24th if you only count Canada and the US and exclude Mexico City).

The LAX connector is still 3+ years away from opening (scheduled opening date is now 2023), so I wouldn't count it just yet.

10 of 15 is fine. 67% is a decent percentage, but it's well short of being, "every other major metropolitan city in North America". Also, those numbers look fine now, but just a decade ago it would have been 5 of 15. 20 years ago, it was 2 of 15 (although, the top 15 airports may have been different then too).


No one is saying Calgary shouldn't build a rail link to the airport, but it shouldn't be a top priority over putting the C-Train into neighbourhoods where people actually live.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

With all due respect, that pst seems to suggest that rail links are common. I’m also not sure why Vancouver isn’t on the list, and I love its rail link (including for business travel). Only 4 out of 15 don’t have a link (not counting LA’s because its planned). Vegas doesn’t need one - it doesn’t have rail anywhere else anyway. Same with Orlando. Tourist destinations typically involve bags anyway, especially Orlando, so taxis and Ubers are better. Houston would be a monster to connect.

The Las Vegas Strip Monorail is suppose to be extended from the MGM Grand to McCarran Airport with stops in between at Mandalay Bay, the new MSG Sphere and Allegiant Stadium when they are completed.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

The Las Vegas Strip Monorail is suppose to be extended from the MGM Grand to McCarran Airport with stops in between at Mandalay Bay, the new MSG Sphere and Allegiant Stadium when they are completed.

They’ve talked about expanding that stupid monorail for years. But all of those stops are at the south end. I need to go to the Bellagio at least.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They’ve talked about expanding that stupid monorail for years. But all of those stops are at the south end. I need to go to the Bellagio at least.

Get off at Bally's and walk a block across the street, I only remember about 6 stops unless they added some the last few years, anyway for $5 you can go end to end in about 15 minutes, I bought the 3 day pack for $25 and went up and down the strip 6 times, way faster and cheaper than a cab.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Get off at Bally's and walk a block across the street, I only remember about 6 stops unless they added some the last few years, anyway for $5 you can go end to end in about 15 minutes, I bought the 3 day pack for $25 and went up and down the strip 6 times, way faster and cheaper than a cab.

Hmmm - I didn't know it went that far (I'm almost always hanging out on the other side of the strip). But I'd have to walk thru Bally's you say? Gross . Seriously, once problem with that thing is platform location - they are at the back of every property. I just don't think the Vegas system is efficient or economical (it went bankrupt in 2010).

Absent underground or a huge elevated platform I don't see how it's going to connect to the stadium. Same for the airport. So far they haven't wanted to cross the strip.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

And Vancouver was able to build that because of the Olympics.

The story of the Canada Line is an interesting one.

Lots of transit planners hated the idea, not because they didn't think it was needed, but because they couldn't justify building a train to the airport before building a train to UBC. The 99-B Line being the busiest bus line in North America being the main push for it (build where the most riders are, then a lot of those buses can be freed up to improve transit service elsewhere).

People accused planners of significantly overestimating ridership projections for the Canada Line to justify its funding ahead of the Olympics (so there was a very vocal group who considered the Olympics bad because it was pushing the Canada Line as the major transportation project for one event rather than pushing the most needed project). Surrey didn't support it because they wanted an expanded light rail network. Burnaby didn't support it because 'it didn't benefit Burnaby', people along Cambie were probably the biggest opposers because they didn't want construction.

The planning for the line itself went through a lot of changes as well. Everything from 3 track portions to allow 24h service to having matching capacity as the Millenium and Expo lines. Richmond didn't want a skytrain portion because they didn't want guideway shadows and instead wanted it built at grade. The compromise to have a single-track skytrain portion was come to instead, which of course reduces the frequency times. During construction to save cost stations were reduced to 40m from 50m, which means that once the line reaches max frequency, the only way to increase capacity further is to undergo the even more expensive station expansion to 50m to allow 3 car trains. The only way to increase frequency is to re-do the single-track portion in Richmond.

So the whole project was under-built amidst political and timeline concerns regarding cost and aesthetics (as well as inter-city pettiness). With the intense pressure on finally getting the most needed line built to UBC, capital to allow an increase to capacity and expansion may be hard to come by. While the success of the line in surpassing the 'inflated' ridership projections shows it wasn't a mistake in building the line, being a victim of it's own success means it will be a pain in the ass for TransLink for a long, long time and also shows the folly of short-sighted cuts amid political pressure.

Whatever your position is on the arena and its funding, let the Canada Line be a lesson in what happens when you skimp on a project to save some money. Or hell, just look at 7th Ave. Sure you'll get a functional piece of infrastructure, but you'll be paying for it in other ways in the long run.

[woob]

To go with Roughneck's post above: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-skytrain (Note: It's an OPINION article)

[GioforPM]

Like I said, I have no idea about the economics. But damn, it makes it easy and convenient to get from the airport to the downtown station (and very close to major hotels). And it's probably 5X faster. Of course, not every city has Vancouver's traffic bottleneck problems.

I think the ones on that list earlier are pretty explainable. Orland, LA and perhaps Houston all have so many variable destinations, a dedicated train line wouldn't work well. Ones that have trains had existing lines to tie into as well.

Monorail aside, the hotels in Vegas are really close to the airport and relatively quick to get to, so cabs/Ubers aren't a big deal.

[GioforPM]

double

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by woob

To go with Roughneck's post above: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-skytrain (Note: It's an OPINION article)

Oddly enough it was a different daily hive article that I read a bunch from in the past.


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/shor...aring-capacity


Note one of the changes to alleviate the problems with the Canada Line is to re-run the 98-B Line, which the Canada Line was meant to replace. Which would be the equivalent of underbuilding the Green Line in order to get it to going further north and then keeping the 301 running to deal with ridership numbers.