BuckyHermit Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 lol japanese and their pink TVMs. Do we need yet another form of payment at the convenience store? We already have Visa PayWave, Mastercard PayPass... I think the transit card probably should stay just as a transit card. Orrrr... you can have what has happened here -- the card replacing all other forms of payment (except cash). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted December 21, 2009 Author Share Posted December 21, 2009 Power rail problem shuts Canada Line's airport section December 20, 2009 7:02 PM METRO VANCOUVER - People taking the Canada Line to the airport tonight will need to change to a shuttle train at Bridgeport station. "Due to a problem with the power rail on one of the tracks in the vicinity of Templeton Station, Canada Line is using alternate service right now," TransLink spokesman Drew Snider said in a press release. "Passengers heading to Sea Island stations (Templeton, Sea Island Centre, YVR-Airport) will have to get off the train at Bridgeport and change to a shuttle train operating along the Airport portion of the Canada Line." The time between trains bound for the airport should not be affected, so passengers will likely not experience delays, Snider said. © Copyright © The Vancouver Sun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtzfan Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Parking fees even higher, thanks to HST By Don Cayo, Vancouver Sun Oops. I was wrong about the huge, looming increases in the sales tax rate on parking fees in Metro Vancouver. It turns out they're even larger than I said. The difference between the whopping big figures I reported and the whopping-even-bigger amounts you'll have to pay is thanks to tax on tax, and the magic of compounding. So as of Jan. 1, when TransLink is poised to triple the provincial sales tax on parking, the total rate, when combined with the federal GST, will be 27.05 per cent, not 26 per cent as I -- and, not incidentally, as the parking companies who must collect and remit this money--had thought. . . . Click Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Power rail problem shuts Canada Line's airport section December 20, 2009 7:02 PM METRO VANCOUVER - People taking the Canada Line to the airport tonight will need to change to a shuttle train at Bridgeport station. "Due to a problem with the power rail on one of the tracks in the vicinity of Templeton Station, Canada Line is using alternate service right now," TransLink spokesman Drew Snider said in a press release. "Passengers heading to Sea Island stations (Templeton, Sea Island Centre, YVR-Airport) will have to get off the train at Bridgeport and change to a shuttle train operating along the Airport portion of the Canada Line." The time between trains bound for the airport should not be affected, so passengers will likely not experience delays, Snider said. © Copyright © The Vancouver Sun So how would this work? Trains operating only on one track? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted December 21, 2009 Author Share Posted December 21, 2009 So how would this work? Trains operating only on one track? One train is used along the airport section and it reverses back to the airport at Bridgeport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I honestly don't get the backlash against smart cards in Vancouver. Before my family left Hong Kong, my dad worked for the MTR (Hong Kong's subway system) and one of his assignments was the ticketing system and machines. Even back then, Hong Kong had a system similar to smart cards (except it used magnetic cards) -- and my family came to Canada in 1992! So basically, Vancouver's playing catch-up to a system that was implemented in Hong Kong already 17 years ago. That's kind of... sad. My opposition is based on the premise that I feel it will cost more to implement than it will recover in the fare box while providing little towards actually improving security. (The areas immeadiately outside the stations could use a booste in security. That said, if this was being done as part of a larger project to rennovate the stations and lenghten the platforms so that longer trains could be used in the system, such that the incremental costs of including them were eaten up by the larger rennovation cost, and the whole thing was evaluated as one project, then I suspect the numbers would look a lot better, especially since you would be taking care of two construction projects with one construction operation. In other words, if this is deemed to be needed, it should at least be done more effeciently by doing it with the at very least equally needed program to increase the length of the stations to allow for longer trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 My opposition is based on the premise that I feel it will cost more to implement than it will recover in the fare box while providing little towards actually improving security. (The areas immeadiately outside the stations could use a booste in security. That said, if this was being done as part of a larger project to rennovate the stations and lenghten the platforms so that longer trains could be used in the system, such that the incremental costs of including them were eaten up by the larger rennovation cost, and the whole thing was evaluated as one project, then I suspect the numbers would look a lot better, especially since you would be taking care of two construction projects with one construction operation. In other words, if this is deemed to be needed, it should at least be done more effeciently by doing it with the at very least equally needed program to increase the length of the stations to allow for longer trains. Actual security isn't the issue though. It's just the perception. The perception is that faregates/turnstiles will improve security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Actual security isn't the issue though. It's just the perception. The perception is that faregates/turnstiles will improve security. But is that perceived security going to allow more people to ride transit? Or to put it another way, is the cost of installing these turnstiles going to be offset by the increase in ridership/collections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 But is that perceived security going to allow more people to ride transit? Or to put it another way, is the cost of installing these turnstiles going to be offset by the increase in ridership/collections? I suppose the theory is that it would encourage more users. Perception is reality... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted December 22, 2009 Author Share Posted December 22, 2009 I couldn't agree more, perception is key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckyHermit Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 But is that perceived security going to allow more people to ride transit? Or to put it another way, is the cost of installing these turnstiles going to be offset by the increase in ridership/collections? It definitely helps. I've seen it in action here and it simply works. Also, the convenience of the cards encourages people to use the system as well; it's amazing how people don't think twice about using transit because of the card's convenience. It's the perception that it's convenient and you never have to worry about having enough money to ride (until you have to recharge the card... and even then, it's not a big deal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj_coolcat Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 So I keep hearing rumours that the expo line skytrain will not be go past Stadium during the Olympics, ie, it won't go to Granville, Burrard or Waterfront station. I can't find any confirmation about this on the translink or VANOC website. Can someone tell me *cough*nitronuts*cough* if this is actually true? If it is, I'm going to have some difficulty getting to the events (I'm coming from south Granville area, was going to take Canada Line and transfer to expo line, but if the skytrain isn't running through downtown I'll have to find another way.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted December 22, 2009 Author Share Posted December 22, 2009 ^ Translink would have to sink to new incompetent lows in order to pull that off. That makes zero sense, it's not true at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj_coolcat Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Thank God. I wonder where that rumour started.... I've had a bunch of friends tell me the same thing, I told them it made no sense because how the hell would everyone get around downtown with all the road closures and bus detours if the skytrain WASN'T running. They mumbled some crap about security zones and such. But I'd heard it enough times I was starting to get worried, haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted December 22, 2009 Author Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) ^ well, Stadium Station is just outside of the GM Place/BC Place security zone and is an integral part of the transportation plan for the massive Live Site right next to it, BC Place, GM Place, and so much more. Granville and Burrard Stations are not in the security zone. And Waterfront Station is one block away from the convention centre security zone. Whoever suggested that SkyTrain isn't running in downtown is an idiot...if people are being told not to drive nor take SkyTrain into downtown, how else will they get around? Edited December 22, 2009 by nitronuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckyHermit Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 if people are being told not to drive nor take SkyTrain into downtown, how else will they get around? Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Duh. This is Waterfront, not Surrey Central Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trek Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 This is Waterfront, not Surrey Central win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckyHermit Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 This is Waterfront, not Surrey Central You're just saying that because they're Indian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I suppose the theory is that it would encourage more users. Perception is reality... Call me a radical, but I would say that increasing the capacity so you don't have to spend the entire ride in someone's armpit would do a lot more for increasing ridership than some (misguided) perception of security. Inceasing the appearance of security would be more easily accomplished by having more eyes around. One of the ways that can be done is to increase the amount of commercial facilities near and within the station. Not only does it provide ammenities for riders, rent for translink, and business opportuntities for the local community, it also increases that whole perception of safety thing. This method of increasing the perception of safety has the added bonus of generating revenue, not costing it. 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