BuckyHermit Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) maybe in the future, we won't even need runways. some kind of launch pad might do. http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/9500/...-Shot--9784.jpg Edited July 22, 2009 by BuckyHermit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 driving an hour into town from YXX is balls. Well, flying to and from Vancouver isn't something you have to do every day of your life. Let the discount carriers have Abby, and charge a premium for YVR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armada Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/9500/...-Shot--9784.jpg Hmm, I think the airline industry should take a look at this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) It should work out if they strictly force all overflow traffic that way, instead of taking a half assed approach to it. Don't compromise both the environment and aviation safety for the convenience of the Sea Island location. To ensure Mirabel Airport's survival, all international flights for Montréal were banned from Dorval Airport from 1975 to 1997. However, public pressure in support of Dorval prevented its planned closure, yet Dorval's continued existence made Mirabel comparatively expensive and unattractive to airlines and travelers alike. Dorval was only 20 minutes away from the city core while it took 50 minutes to get to Mirabel in ideal traffic conditions. In the end, Dorval became Montreal's main airport while Mirabel was reduced to flights for cargo, film studios, and development space for Bombardier. Abbotsford is simply way too far from the core of the region's population...and from Downtown. It's bound to be a disaster. And having an airport near your downtown is always a major attraction. Edited July 22, 2009 by nitronuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 To ensure Mirabel Airport's survival, all international flights for Montréal were banned from Dorval Airport from 1975 to 1997. However, public pressure in support of Dorval prevented its planned closure, yet Dorval's continued existence made Mirabel comparatively expensive and unattractive to airlines and travelers alike. Dorval was only 20 minutes away from the city core while it took 50 minutes to get to Mirabel in ideal traffic conditions. In the end, Dorval became Montreal's main airport while Mirabel was reduced to flights for cargo, film studios, and development space for Bombardier. Abbotsford is simply way too far from the core of the region's population...and from Downtown. It's bound to be a disaster. And having an airport near your downtown is always a major attraction. Sounds to me the difference here is that Dorval/Trudeau still had room for more traffic. We're talking about a situation here where YVR is maxed out, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 Sounds to me the difference here is that Dorval/Trudeau still had room for more traffic. We're talking about a situation here where YVR is maxed out, right? Maxed out is a different issue. I thought you were suggesting to abandon Sea Island entirely. YVR probably won't max. out in any of our lifetimes, and although it does seem cramp it does have plenty of capacity. Note that few metropolitan cities around the world have more than one international airport, Vancouver would need to develop a much higher population (and population density) to support two major international airports. YVR currently serves 18-million people a year....with terminal and runway expansions, it could certainly reach 40 to 50-million before we would have to think about a secondary airport. And our region would need 5-6 million people to have 40-50 million pass through the gate of YVR every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckyHermit Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) Re: Sea Island Compared to other airports I've been to, the space allotted to YVR on Sea Island is HUGE. Absolutely huge. Edited July 22, 2009 by BuckyHermit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 YVR probably won't max. out in any of our lifetimes How about without the extra runway out to sea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I like how this thread has taken to the skies. I don't approve. let's get back to bitching about translink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 How about without the extra runway out to sea? A fourth runway would be one of the last runways YVR would be able to build, without completely reconfiguring Sea Island to use the island's space as efficiently as possible for more runways. The fourth runway out to sea would mean YVR would be able to handle 450,000 more flights annually. And a shorter fifth runway on the southern portion of the island would also increase the airport's flight numbers by 200,000 annually. You could build an Abbottsford International Airport. The problem is, there isn't enough demand for two major airports in this region. Abbottsford will likely remain as a regional airport. In addition, it's up to the airlines: why would they want to use Abby instead of YVR? I think you're rather making a mountain of a molehill out of the YVR "space problem", it's hardly an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 A few things I've heard of, that should be 95% accurate: 1) the Canada Line will begin service on Monday, August 17th 2) there will be no feeder bus lines to the Canada Line until September....the change in the region's bus routes won't occur until school starts (the 98 B-Line and commuter buses on Granville will remain until September). InTransitBC only decided on the August 17th opening date this past week, certainly not giving Translink enough time to prepare. 3) there are fears there may not be enough buses to transport people around during the Olympics. There was talk of borrowing buses from Seattle. However there was a problem as to who would drive them. Seattle suggested their drivers, but the union here said no way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanuck14 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 A few things I've heard of, that should be 95% accurate: 1) the Canada Line will begin service on Monday, August 17th 2) there will be no feeder bus lines to the Canada Line until September....the change in the region's bus routes won't occur until school starts (the 98 B-Line and commuter buses on Granville will remain until September). InTransitBC only decided on the August 17th opening date this past week, certainly not giving Translink enough time to prepare. 3) there are fears there may not be enough buses to transport people around during the Olympics. There was talk of borrowing buses from Seattle. However there was a problem as to who would drive them. Seattle suggested their drivers, but the union here said no way! Considering there is not enough buses now I would not be surprised when it comes to the Olympics. Translink had how many years to figure this crap out? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Considering there is not enough buses now I would not be surprised when it comes to the Olympics. Translink had how many years to figure this crap out? Wow. Well, taking a good 80-90 buses out of regular routes ought to bump up SOME drivers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) Considering there is not enough buses now I would not be surprised when it comes to the Olympics. Translink had how many years to figure this crap out? Wow. And it certainly doesn't help either when Vancouver School Board decided not to move spring break up a week for their own political motives. They'll also have 30 spare articulated buses to work with the 98 B-Line being shut down....perhaps that's why they're not using those buses for a new B-Line route until after the Games. Edited July 22, 2009 by nitronuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 A fourth runway would be one of the last runways YVR would be able to build, without completely reconfiguring Sea Island to use the island's space as efficiently as possible for more runways. The fourth runway out to sea would mean YVR would be able to handle 450,000 more flights annually. And a shorter fifth runway on the southern portion of the island would also increase the airport's flight numbers by 200,000 annually. You could build an Abbottsford International Airport. The problem is, there isn't enough demand for two major airports in this region. Abbottsford will likely remain as a regional airport. In addition, it's up to the airlines: why would they want to use Abby instead of YVR? I think you're rather making a mountain of a molehill out of the YVR "space problem", it's hardly an issue. The shore off of Sea Island is an environmentally sensitive wetland, right? I imagine attempting to infill it will be met with much opposition and resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 And it certainly doesn't help either when Vancouver School Board decided not to move spring break up a week for their own political motives. They'll also have 30 spare articulated buses to work with the 98 B-Line being shut down....perhaps that's why they're not using those buses for a new B-Line route until after the Games. UBC is closed during the Olympics too, no? That should free up a lot of buses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 3) there are fears there may not be enough buses to transport people around during the Olympics. There was talk of borrowing buses from Seattle. However there was a problem as to who would drive them. Seattle suggested their drivers, but the union here said no way! So what is their suggested alternative? How does bringing in some relief drivers over a two week period under very special circumstances threaten their livelihoods anyways? I figured rushing their work visa applications would be a greater hurdle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) The shore off of Sea Island is an environmentally sensitive wetland, right? I imagine attempting to infill it will be met with much opposition and resistance. Pretty much. Much like the so called toll to Grant McConachie (laugh) or a toll on the Aurthur Laing (last resort) there are things that can be done to improve traffic before something that drastic happens. The north runway is just over a decade old, I don't think runways are at capacity quite yet. Of course, if it really becamen necesary, you could build it like a giant bridge on peirs out to the ocean for the parts that need to be out there. It would be expensive but it would probably pass enviro review since it would be so much less of an impact. Edited July 22, 2009 by ronthecivil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 The shore off of Sea Island is an environmentally sensitive wetland, right? I imagine attempting to infill it will be met with much opposition and resistance. Well, translink could just give them a wink wink nudge nudge and they could operate privately on their own. You can bet companies like greyhound will be here trying to fill in any gaps that are missing. I could see for example an Abbottsford to the end of the skytrain and a downtown to Whistler service being much much more econimically feasible and good reason to increase service. The union can't do anything about that. All translink has to do is publisise what the olympic routes and schedules will be, and enterprising people will fill in the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 We've discussed that before....it's bound to be a failure. I'll even nickname it Mirabel II! True, but if it's allowed to grow naturally, as it's doing, and eventually transit service is expanded to out there, then it could at least handle some of the traffic. They have enough people to support and AHL franchise apparently. And I think it would be closer to Surrey and Langley for sure than YVR, regions of high growth. Unless you have a crazy Fed scheme in place instead of good business practice there is no danger of it being Mirable II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now