Vancouver 2010?
Jun 27, 2003, 3:25 pm
#32
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Programs: BA GGL, FPC Plat, HH Diamond, IHG Amb
Posts: 3,372
I am pro-bid, but with reservations about the infrastructure development.
The 99 needs upgrading to Whistler, whether we get the Games or not. This is a good excuse to do what should have been done long ago (and represents the biggest cost factor involved).
As for rapid transit to Richmond/Airport, I would far prefer a surface rail solution on the Arbutus corridor. It represents a significantly lower capital cost than the Cambie solution.
The 99 needs upgrading to Whistler, whether we get the Games or not. This is a good excuse to do what should have been done long ago (and represents the biggest cost factor involved).
As for rapid transit to Richmond/Airport, I would far prefer a surface rail solution on the Arbutus corridor. It represents a significantly lower capital cost than the Cambie solution.
Jun 27, 2003, 3:41 pm
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,808
My GF is a life-long British Columbian but she thinks there are better things to spend the money on given that the province isn;t in the best of shape.
The Fraser Institute, a right-wing economic thinktank organisation has come out against the games questioning the assumptions (very aggressive as noted by the provincial Auditor General) and most notably, the taxpayers of B.C. having to guarantee any losses. If B.C> taxpayers really didn't have to foot a penny or stand to lose one, I don;t care one way or another.
The Fraser Institute, a right-wing economic thinktank organisation has come out against the games questioning the assumptions (very aggressive as noted by the provincial Auditor General) and most notably, the taxpayers of B.C. having to guarantee any losses. If B.C> taxpayers really didn't have to foot a penny or stand to lose one, I don;t care one way or another.
Jun 27, 2003, 4:02 pm
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,808
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by AC*SE:
The 99 needs upgrading to Whistler, whether we get the Games or not. This is a good excuse to do what should have been done long ago (and represents the biggest cost factor involved).
</font>
The 99 needs upgrading to Whistler, whether we get the Games or not. This is a good excuse to do what should have been done long ago (and represents the biggest cost factor involved).
</font>
To accomodate traffic, the highway will have to be shut off to private cars and 5-7 busses a minute will have to be using it to get people up there. It is a major bottleneck.
As you know passenger rail service is now not offered and anyway the speed of trains is severely restricted due to the nature of the road. One half-baked idea was to pave over the railbed to allow its use as a third lane.
Jun 27, 2003, 4:58 pm
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,808
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by AC*SE:
As for rapid transit to Richmond/Airport, I would far prefer a surface rail solution on the Arbutus corridor. It represents a significantly lower capital cost than the Cambie solution.</font>
As for rapid transit to Richmond/Airport, I would far prefer a surface rail solution on the Arbutus corridor. It represents a significantly lower capital cost than the Cambie solution.</font>
Jun 27, 2003, 5:48 pm
#36
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: LHR, GLA and YVR
Posts: 1,684
NIMBY doesn't apply to this lady in regards to Arbutus corridor ... it is my backyard...or very close to it... and I agree with you AC SE... it just makes sense...
Originally posted by AC*SE:
As for rapid transit to Richmond/Airport, I would far prefer a surface rail solution on the Arbutus corridor. It represents a significantly lower capital cost than the Cambie solution.
Originally posted by AC*SE:
As for rapid transit to Richmond/Airport, I would far prefer a surface rail solution on the Arbutus corridor. It represents a significantly lower capital cost than the Cambie solution.
Jun 27, 2003, 5:51 pm
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,808
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by nobody-elite:
NIMBY doesn't apply to this lady in regards to Arbutus corridor ... i</font>
NIMBY doesn't apply to this lady in regards to Arbutus corridor ... i</font>
Jun 27, 2003, 5:54 pm
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AE
Posts: 10,566
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by terenz:
...As you know passenger rail service is now not offered and anyway the speed of trains is severely restricted due to the nature of the road. One half-baked idea was to pave over the railbed to allow its use as a third lane.</font>
...As you know passenger rail service is now not offered and anyway the speed of trains is severely restricted due to the nature of the road. One half-baked idea was to pave over the railbed to allow its use as a third lane.
</font>
I can't recall if the airfield at Pemberton is capable of handling Dash-8's? That would be a pretty short Jazz flight from YVR
Jun 27, 2003, 6:38 pm
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by AC*SE:
...The 99 needs upgrading to Whistler, ...</font>
...The 99 needs upgrading to Whistler, ...</font>
Kelowna to Salmon Arm
Lake Louise to Golden
Revelstoke to Salmon Arm
Port Mann to Abbottsford
BC needs another Flyin' Phill
Jul 2, 2003, 9:00 am
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AE
Posts: 10,566
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by superdawg:
Salzburg is out, it is going to a second vote for Vancouver and Pyeongchang</font>
Salzburg is out, it is going to a second vote for Vancouver and Pyeongchang</font>
Jul 2, 2003, 9:41 am
#45
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: An island in the Pacific
Posts: 2,651
I don't know if people realize there is considerable work going on right now on the Sea to Sky highway. We were in Whistler last week and were surprised to see extensive road work (heavy equipment, blasting, etc) for a considerable portion of the highway. We asssumed the government pushed through the start of road work on this highway in order to bolster the bid process. However, I don't think taxpayers had quite accepted this expense or even the need for it...????
Am I missing something here? Whether you support the bid or not, it doesn't seem right to me to go ahead with such a major expense without cost/benefit analysis and support of the people paying for it.
Am I missing something here? Whether you support the bid or not, it doesn't seem right to me to go ahead with such a major expense without cost/benefit analysis and support of the people paying for it.