Wardair A310

The Squamish/Whistler Hwy need to been completely upgraded anyways, it's far too deadly as it is. 2010 or not it should be at least 3 lanes. As a homeowner in Whistler since 1968 I've seen growth way off the richter scale, it's the drawback of world class, unparalleled (for North Am.) ski terrain, close to a major airport. The Olympics would be crazy up there for 18-days, sure, but the showcase it would provide to BC tourism (ALL of BC & Western Canada) is priceless. 1.5 billion people watching BC scenery, with the "local vignettes" that they do, would generate $$$ into EVERY sector of the economy for 2010,2011,2012 and countless years afterwards. More conventions would come to BC, more independent travellers, more skiers, at new ski hills (Cayoosh?, Brohm? etc.) Legacy projects it would bring, particularly with transport are a huge bonus. You're complaining about what traffic might be like for 18 days, 2300 days from now? Who cares - take transit. There will be delays in construction, particularly on Hwy 99, but that's what it takes to replace (or even repair) a road like that.

YVR Cockroach

Whistler doesn't need increased tourism. It's already the No. 1 rated ski destination in North America. Gets hordes of British ski tourists too as it is. It is basically saturated already. It's not just a matter of getting people there but getting around once they're there. No doubt you are aware of the long single land traffic winding through the town on the best of days? Unless they want to build ring roads around Whistler, it's essentially already saturated traffic-wise.

You'll notice that there are enough U.S. tourists here for cruises already in addition to many independent tourists. Sailings are down 10% this year as U.S tourists want to stay home.

Sure, and all while trying to meet the Treaty of Kyoto obligations and not go into any more environmental degradation (not that it matters to those who want $$$$).

Can you imagine a 3 lane highway that is like the Lions Gate bridge (o.k. maybe wider) + add in winding roads, wet and foggy weather, dark skies, skiiers tired from waking up too early to get to the slopes and then drivng home int he dark. All with no lane divider? You have a recipe for disaster (fine by me other than for the tax consequences - I don't go up there).

YVR Cockroach

Exactly. Though the organisers tend to try to hide the subsidies.

Also, Tim Louis, a Vancouver citu councillor who is anti-bid (as it stands) had a conversation along these lines with a young bid supporter:

TL: Give me your credit card

BS: Why?

TL: Just give me your credit card!

BS: Why?

TL: Because I want to hold a 2 week party and let you pay for it


Essentially, the B.C. and Canadian tax payers are on the hook if the thing loses money.


What's good that happened this week is that the federal government only promised $300mm for the airport transit line while the bid supporters at the transit authority were counting on $450mm/

YVR Cockroach

There are, but it runs through the G.V.R.D. watershed. It's been an idea for years but was shot down by the current provincial government as any attempt to build a highway through it wold be tied up in environmental litigation (rightly so) well past the actual games.

jral

Ordinarily, I wouldn't do this, but I feel compelled to do so:

terenz, did you even READ what he said before quoting it and throwing in you two cents?

Originally posted by Wardair A310:
the showcase it would provide to BC tourism (ALL of BC & Western Canada) is priceless. 1.5 billion people watching BC scenery, with the "local vignettes" that they do, would generate $$$ into EVERY sector of the economy for 2010,2011,2012 and countless years afterwards.

Originally posted by terenz:
Whistler doesn't need increased tourism. It's already the No. 1 rated ski destination in North America. Gets hordes of British ski tourists too as it is. It is basically saturated already.

Wardair310 clearly stated BC & Western Canada tourism as a whole would benefit. Sure Whistler is packed now, it's almost a resort for millionaires; an Olympics would bring further tourism to other areas of the province that need the visitors for years after the event. Forestry is not going to be the future of rural BC, tourism is. Vancouver tourism will do just fine in the future...it's the other regions that need to prosper. 2010 is the best catalyst

As a convention-marketing specialist for many years, I can tell you the number of worldwide meeting planners booking Vancouver for their event will triple or more, both before & after a successful 2010 Vancouver bid. The VCEC will be expanded regardless of the bid outcome - Vancouver has needed a 500,000sqft venue, not a 120K one for years.

Regarding the upgrade to the Sea to Sky Highway, all I can say you're obviously not an engineer, are you? I suppose you're against the YVR Airport RAV transit project too, huh?

[This message has been edited by jral (edited 06-26-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jral (edited 06-26-2003).]

YVR Cockroach

Habe you even seen the highway? All I can say is that undivided high speed highways are a recipe for disaster. This highway will have switching directions for the middle lane so no divider is possible.

No, I am not an engineer. I don't increase costs by charging lots of consulting fees for butt cover.

And I really doubt if anyone will really go see the rest of western Canada because of the games if they haven't already. Certainly, the rest of Utah isn't getting much travel post-olympics. In fact, there has been a drop off in visits.

YVR Cockroach

So are a lot of Richmond commuters. Right now even with the 98B and realignment of services, there are express commuter busses from various parts of Richmond to downtown Vancouver so you can even walk to the local stop and get off at a variety of stops (about 11) in downtown Vancouver.

With the RAV line, you'd have to get a local bus to the nearest RAV line station if you don't live nearby one (I think it'll be along No. 3 Road) and then get on the train and there will only be 3 (downtown) stops in Vancouver.

The airport extension has no commercial basis except that it was the only way the airport authority would provide funds. The design could send off a spur line to run under the airport and into west Richmond but traffic isn't there and it'll be expensive.

Unless you live right on the proposed RAV line, your commute time is going to go up.

Again, do you know any of the local issues? I doubt it.

I'm against the line's routing and proposed design because it is going to be on surface along parts of Cambie instead of being totally underground along Cambie. It'll be fine by me if it was totally underground along Cambie.

I'd also prefer the routing via Arbutus/West/East Boulevard because the CP rail line runs there alread but there's a lot of NIMBYism going on. This route would also make more sense for the airport.

There's also the issue that Coquitlan/ort Coquitlam was promised that Skytrain will be extended there first but that's another borken promise.

Another thing, the federal short fall in proposed RAV funding translates into some 150 trolley busses (which I like) or about 600 diesel ones (which I don't).

jral

I'm pretty sure I know most of the local RAV issues, as I was on the Vancouver Tourism transportation (GVGC)committee for four years. Why not Cambie? The proposed line is to be underground all the way on Cambie until at least 46th Ave., more likely 57th or Marine Drive Arbutus doesn't have the corridor employment & population base to make it worthwhile. (What large commercial/institutional operation are anywhere near the Arbutus Route?) Cambie has VGH, Childrens, Oakridge, Langara College etc. (but all this is way off thread topic)

jral

Okay...that enough from me oth this topic. I'm not going to rant or mudsling anymore. I vowed never to use FT as a negative outlet.

YVR Cockroach

Ah, the maniuplators of public opinion and distorter thereof.

If it was underground all the way to Marine, that'd be fine. Right now they're talking in the 40s which is taking out fine green space. Many people like the divided greenway of Cambie exactly the way it is.

It does have an existing rail right of way. Kerrisdale also is starting to become very dense and there's condo developments all over (yes, even in that part of the west side).

A lot of traffic may not go N-S along the corridor but may already be local, E-W and all other directions. Sure a lot of options will be added for people who work there but by and large, I don't think it'll add ridership.

You can also see from this routing map that the extension routing for the airport is really just for the airport and would add no value for most people. Most people who fly to Vancouver don't take public transit to their final destination (I actually do occasionally because I am cheap). However, it might end up where it'll be cheaper to pay for cab fares for people who would use the line to get to the airport. The airport authority is only throwing in $300mm or so which is nowhere near enough to fund the extension.

I'm not against the R.A.V. line but more concerned that it's ill-concieved and less-than-optimally planned because it is being solely rushed just for the games. Also, the finances and ridership projections are apparently very optimistic. G.V.R.D. taxpayers may be on the hook if there is a revenue shortfall by the private operator. Of course, all the details are kept in the dark.


So nothing to answer about the ill-concieved nature of the Whistler highway upgrade and the fact the RAV line will add commute time for most Richmond commuters?

Airbus330

I am in favour of the Olympics out there - Calgary was fantastic. Having been to Whistler only a handful of times, I'm no expert, but I do know that that road needs to be upgraded and three or four lanes the whole way makes sense to me, regardless of the costs. Aren't they toying with the idea of a Toll road, a la Hwy 407?


I would suspect that the legacy the Olympics would leave behind would be a great boon to Southern BC, especially the transpot infrastructure. I don't think new winter sport venues are needed in Vancouver at all- it's not a winter city. The cost benefit analysis may be burdensome to taxpayers in the short term, but long term it seems to me that it is all worth it. I did like that analogy to the credit card for a two week party though!


I don't think you can compare B.C. to Utah at all. Vancouver is a world class, cosmopolitan, Pacific Rim city with enormous potential and all of B.C. is a tourism paridise. Salt Lake is a smaller, more regional city - Utah has lovely mountains, great skiing and amazing canyons, but doesn't come close to B.C. - no Ocean, no Okanagan, no Queen Charlottes, no Uculet, no vast wilds.



[This message has been edited by Airbus330 (edited 06-27-2003).]

YVR Cockroach

The provincial government is calling for just 3 lanes, with the middle lane switching directions. 4 lanes is too expensive given the rock blasting and there's really no place to put it. There has been some half-baked proposal to use the rail line as another road lane.

Yes, there is a toll proposal.

Other than an ill-concieved and very highly priced line that will nearly triple the transit authorities debt and starve decrepit bus fleet renewal (the trolley bus fleet is about 20 years old, cost $1mm each for new ones, and have clocked something like 1mm km per bus), what infrastructure? Certainly no proposals for highways in the Fraser Valley which are chocked. Just a highway for the very few rich to use which is still half-baked.


Where have we heard about the "long term" benefits before? We're still paying for the long-term benefits of budgetary deficits from Trudeau and Mulroney.

[quote[
all of B.C. is a tourism paridise. Salt Lake is a smaller, more regional city
[/quote]

I really hate to think all the "Super Natural B.C." ads that have been run for the past 20 years haven't worked. It's been out there. The world knows about. Whether they want to come or not is another matter. Australia has similar sights. The expected post-games boon
hasn't really materialised down there either.

AAirline Geek

No - I do not support the Games, particularly not at taxpayer expense.

To support the Olympic bid, does anyone have a problem with the YVR Airport Authority using AIF funds to contribute $300 million to the RAV line without first seeking approval from the electorate or represented populations? Is this not WAY beyond the original mandate of the AIF?

Funds from AIFs seem to be a drug habit that most airport authorities cannot (or will not) kick. All the while, it depresses demand for air travel through excessive taxation ... and then they wonder where all the passengers have gone.

Won't someone in BC stand-up and speak for the all-too-silent majority, please?

YVR Cockroach

We're here speaking out against the lack of accountability nature of the games. Too many are seduced by the panem ey circenses aspect of it, though the vast majority will not be a part of the games other than as cheap unpaid volunteers so few pockets will be well lined.

FWIW, the "yes" side spent something in the order of $700,000 to promote the yes/games organiser campaign in the referendum held earlier this year (not sure if this included large private ads - some full page - in the papers). The no side only had $5,000 to spend. Goes to show you what money can buy.


A family friend of my GF was a physician in Calgary organising for the games and was initially enthusiastic and also volunteered for it. Then this heinous little detail came out that all elective surgery in Calgary was cancelled during the games so that the 4 major hospitals were totally dedicated and avaiable to IOC officials, visiting (in)dignitaries, the press and the athletes (not too sure if this was an I.O.C. demand or not). Needless to say the physician who is now practising in B.C. is against this bid. I say these people should have been treated the way Romans treated injured gladiators - butchered and fed to the animals.

The Calgary games were fine, providing you or a loved one didn't have to have elective surgery (and there is a waiting list for this in Canada) cancelled and rescheduled to a future date.

[This message has been edited by terenz (edited 06-27-2003).]

shuuy

I remember discussing this earlier...

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum5/HTML/008463.html