BuckyHermit Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 I'm gonna have to write a complaint to TransLink about the 410 route one day. Southbound on Railway, there's no sidewalk. As a result, any deployment of the wheelchair ramp is like a big gamble -- because the ground is at least 4 inches lower than it should be, the ramp might not be able to even touch the ground. Also, if you look closely, for every kilometer, there is a maximum of 1 stop designated as "accessible." Sometimes, there's none for two kilometers. For a bus route with the destination display "RAILWAY," there's an embarassing lack of planning along Railway itself. (People who depart the bus also have to walk along bike lanes, due to there being no sidewalk. It seems rather dangerous.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 So you're telling me you can't take off a backpack as you step onto the bus and show the bus driver your pass at the same time? Protip: I can. No I can't. My backpack falls onto the ground and my U-Pass runs away into the storm sewers of Vancouver... O great one, teach me your ways of pre-bus boarding procedures. Show me the true meaning of the backpack and why I shall follow your ways. I know how busy my busses are. I've been riding them long enough to know. I'm on transit both when its not busy, when it is slightly busy, and when its very busy. Numbers, especially two digit or three digit ones, help. Words and general descriptions don't mean anything. Read this if you can. I'll take off my backpack when I see that I need to. Just as I always have(and as it has always worked, as I've never made any problems.) Thanks though. Methinks you have never been left behind at a bus stop because some prick didn't take off their backpack and make extra standing room on the bus. I actually tried this out on the 4:30 480 southbound from UBC today. It was a 60ft high-floor articulated bus. I got about 15 people to not take off their packs and go straight to the back of the bus. I eyeballed about how much space the person used up and how much space the pack used up. Then, I asked them to take off their packs, and put it between their legs, anywhere so long as it use up minimal space. The amount of space saved was enormous. I figured about 14 more people were able to jam into the back of the bus, where the accordion thing ended. 14 people. That's almost double the #ppl able to get onto that part of the bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevforever Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 1.) what for? adverts? 2.) they'll get vandalized pretty quick... they have those in New York and they have ads that the city uses to improve the lines plus they have added tvs to Brooklyn showing where the next trains are on the L line. New York City Transit officials say the screens that will be installed at the Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues station will display a graphic representation of each train. The data will be updated every 15 seconds. and how much is a monthly pass here? i was just in boston for work for a month and there passes seem cheaper and you get more from it. I do remember though when i was a kid growing up in Boston when riding the bus was next to nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 they have those in New York and they have ads that the city uses to improve the lines plus they have added tvs to Brooklyn showing where the next trains are on the L line. New York City Transit officials say the screens that will be installed at the Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues station will display a graphic representation of each train. The data will be updated every 15 seconds. and how much is a monthly pass here? i was just in boston for work for a month and there passes seem cheaper and you get more from it. I do remember though when i was a kid growing up in Boston when riding the bus was next to nothing Month passes here range from $73 to $136 for adults and a flat rate of $42 for students/elderly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 So it seems the fraser valley guy from the province is talking about a plan the workers came up with to reduce the Albion Ferry fleet by one half, but still have it in place for a 3.00 dollar charge that would more or less match the toll on the new Golden Ears Bridge. Is he correct in this or as full of **** as always? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 Cambie merchants sue Canada Line Construction of Vancouver's new rapid-transit system harmed business, they allege Catherine Rolfsen, Vancouver Sun Published: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 VANCOUVER - Three Cambie Village merchants have filed a lawsuit against builders of the Canada Line, claiming the rapid-transit project cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost business. The lawsuit, filed Monday, claims the defendants "knowingly and deliberately" harmed area businesses because they wanted to save construction costs using the cut-and-cover building method. For three years, Cambie Village has been disrupted by construction of the $2-billion Canada Line project, which will link Richmond and Vancouver International Airport with downtown Vancouver. The lawsuit itemizes just a few of the alleged damages caused by construction in the area. It is filed under the Class Proceedings Act and the plaintiffs say they are making the claim on behalf of all business and property owners in Cambie Village. However, class action suits have to be certified by the B.C. Supreme Court before they can represent a broader group of parties. Cambie Village Business Association director Leonard Schein has previously said a class action suit could seek damages between $20 million and $40 million. The three plaintiffs are Gary Gautam, who owns the Cambie General Store, a numbered company running Sofa So Good, and George and Jane King, owners of two area properties. The defendants include Canada Line Rapid Transit and InTransitBC, the companies tasked with building the Canada Line, and SNC-Lavalin, the project's major construction contractor. The plaintiffs say the traffic disruption, lack of parking, and narrowed sidewalks caused by construction meant they lost business. Owners of Sofa So Good are claiming $200,000 in lost revenue as well as relocation costs, saying a 75-per-cent reduction in sales forced them to move their business to West Eighth Avenue. The owner of the Cambie General Store says his business lost $154,000 in sales revenue in 2007. The Kings are claiming they lost $87,000 in defaulted rent and lowered rents for one of their properties, and they were forced to reduce the rent at their other property at a loss of $190,000. Originally, the plans for the rapid transit line were for bored tunnel construction, which would have had little impact on area businesses. However, that plan was changed to cut-and-cover construction, leaving Cambie Street a gaping trench for years. The plaintiffs say that since the defendants saved on costs at their expense, they deserve part of that monetary benefit. None of the defendants were able to comment Tuesday on specifics of the suit. "The matter will have to be discussed in the courts," said Alan Dever, spokesman for the Canada Line. Steve Crombie of InTransitBC said he knew the merchants were contemplating such action, but his company has not yet been served with the papers. He said no compensation has been given to area businesses. "As the contractors building it, that isn't something that we'd be looking at because we're building this based on a contract and what's laid out in the contract," he said. crolfsen@vancouversun.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Cambie merchants sue Canada Line Construction of Vancouver's new rapid-transit system harmed business, they allege Catherine Rolfsen, Vancouver Sun Published: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 VANCOUVER - Three Cambie Village merchants have filed a lawsuit against builders of the Canada Line, claiming the rapid-transit project cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost business. The lawsuit, filed Monday, claims the defendants "knowingly and deliberately" harmed area businesses because they wanted to save construction costs using the cut-and-cover building method. For three years, Cambie Village has been disrupted by construction of the $2-billion Canada Line project, which will link Richmond and Vancouver International Airport with downtown Vancouver. The lawsuit itemizes just a few of the alleged damages caused by construction in the area. It is filed under the Class Proceedings Act and the plaintiffs say they are making the claim on behalf of all business and property owners in Cambie Village. However, class action suits have to be certified by the B.C. Supreme Court before they can represent a broader group of parties. Cambie Village Business Association director Leonard Schein has previously said a class action suit could seek damages between $20 million and $40 million. The three plaintiffs are Gary Gautam, who owns the Cambie General Store, a numbered company running Sofa So Good, and George and Jane King, owners of two area properties. The defendants include Canada Line Rapid Transit and InTransitBC, the companies tasked with building the Canada Line, and SNC-Lavalin, the project's major construction contractor. The plaintiffs say the traffic disruption, lack of parking, and narrowed sidewalks caused by construction meant they lost business. Owners of Sofa So Good are claiming $200,000 in lost revenue as well as relocation costs, saying a 75-per-cent reduction in sales forced them to move their business to West Eighth Avenue. The owner of the Cambie General Store says his business lost $154,000 in sales revenue in 2007. The Kings are claiming they lost $87,000 in defaulted rent and lowered rents for one of their properties, and they were forced to reduce the rent at their other property at a loss of $190,000. Originally, the plans for the rapid transit line were for bored tunnel construction, which would have had little impact on area businesses. However, that plan was changed to cut-and-cover construction, leaving Cambie Street a gaping trench for years. The plaintiffs say that since the defendants saved on costs at their expense, they deserve part of that monetary benefit. None of the defendants were able to comment Tuesday on specifics of the suit. "The matter will have to be discussed in the courts," said Alan Dever, spokesman for the Canada Line. Steve Crombie of InTransitBC said he knew the merchants were contemplating such action, but his company has not yet been served with the papers. He said no compensation has been given to area businesses. "As the contractors building it, that isn't something that we'd be looking at because we're building this based on a contract and what's laid out in the contract," he said. crolfsen@vancouversun.com I guess they haven't lost enough money yet. Lost business can really add up when you put in legal fees. There is no way this isn't fought to the very end to not give them a cent due to the horrific precident it would send. Some people really have to get off this entitlement idea that they own the roads. They don't. If the city decided it wanted to not only remove the parking but also the entire driving lanes and say put in one very long park all the way up cambie it's their right. As long as they stayed off of the businesses property their case is going to go NOWHERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I guess they haven't lost enough money yet. Lost business can really add up when you put in legal fees. There is no way this isn't fought to the very end to not give them a cent due to the horrific precident it would send. Some people really have to get off this entitlement idea that they own the roads. They don't. If the city decided it wanted to not only remove the parking but also the entire driving lanes and say put in one very long park all the way up cambie it's their right. As long as they stayed off of the businesses property their case is going to go NOWHERE. They own the roads that they pay taxes to, right? Governments are supposed to serve the people, not rule them, are they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 They own the roads that they pay taxes to, right? Governments are supposed to serve the people, not rule them, are they not? There's always going to be a risk in developing an area that is already in use. Some people might not want it, and some others (in hindsight) will say it's the best thing since sliced bread. Give this one time. Then Cambie Village shopkeepers will start to see business boom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 There's always going to be a risk in developing an area that is already in use. Some people might not want it, and some others (in hindsight) will say it's the best thing since sliced bread. Give this one time. Then Cambie Village shopkeepers will start to see business boom. IF they have the means to hold up that long. We've already seen the demise of many that couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 Well really, the shopkeepers can't have the best of both worlds. In the early 1990s, the Socred government proposed SkyTrain to the airport. NIMBY's and residents ganged up at city hall and forced politicians to establish the green strip along Cambie as a "heritage boulevard". When the Liberals came to power, efforts to have it elevated on Cambie were again rejected, and so they decided to tunnel it. And now, they're complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtzfan Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Canada Line completes first passenger test to YVR Wednesday, November 12 - 11:30:56 AM Shane Bigham RICHMOND (NEWS1130) - It's still a year away from carrying 'paying' passengers, but the Canada Line marked a major milestone today, as it carried media and dignitaries on its inaugural passenger trip to Vancouver International Airport. It still has that "new train smell", but testing on the YVR stretch of the $2 billion Canada Line is just about complete, and B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell was on-board one of the brand new trains for a quick trip to the airport. The premier called it an exciting milestone, joining the airport and Richmond with downtown Vancouver. More tests are currently underway on the bridge and tracks connecting Richmond and South Vancouver. Most of the construction of the Canada Line tracks is complete, but construction of the Canada Line stations is still underway. Yeah! I can't until Aug. 1st, 2009 Sat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 They own the roads that they pay taxes to, right? Governments are supposed to serve the people, not rule them, are they not? We ALL own the road, and if the people WE elected get together and tear that road up, it's OUR right to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 As what they are already doing now, treat it as a road construction project. Any retribution could set a dangerous precedent and put additional tabs to any future construction projects. I've read that in Toronto, businesses were seeking to stop the revitalization project on Bloor Street because of the impact of construction. The last thing we need is another deterrent for building new transit lines and roads. You need a bit of a bulldozer of a government to actually get projects like this created, if not you will be dealing with red tape squabbles forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Well really, the shopkeepers can't have the best of both worlds. I don't think there's really a choice of "both worlds" to the struggling businesses that don't have the means to stick it out until the project's completed. The rich ones with deep pockets will make a killing later, whereas the poor just get royally screwed. What has to be done has to be done, but the government should either approach these projects with more caution for the businesses along the route, and offer some kind of compensation when necessary. Kind of like how you would expect some compensation for depreciation in property values if they were to build a Skytrain line right next to your home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I don't think there's really a choice of "both worlds" to the struggling businesses that don't have the means to stick it out until the project's completed. The rich ones with deep pockets will make a killing later, whereas the poor just get royally screwed. What has to be done has to be done, but the government should either approach these projects with more caution for the businesses along the route, and offer some kind of compensation when necessary. Kind of like how you would expect some compensation for depreciation in property values if they were to build a Skytrain line right next to your home. You might expect it but your expectations would be pointless, as you would not get it. If the city cared about business they would be better off lowering their taxes! That said, your idea isn't entirely without some merit, you just have to do it that way. For example, if you wanted to make a cut and cover tunnel down tenth to get to UBC, you could offer a 1m licencse to constuct (so at the end of the day they get all their property back) at a fixed cost, not really use it, as a way to offer compensation. If they take the deal they get the money, but if they don't just resind the offer and stay off their property. If you don't touch the property itself your going to be hard pressed to win any court case to get any money, and rest assured the governement (rightfully so) will fight it tooth and nail every step of the way, even if it does end up costing much more money than a settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 I don't think there's really a choice of "both worlds" to the struggling businesses that don't have the means to stick it out until the project's completed. The rich ones with deep pockets will make a killing later, whereas the poor just get royally screwed. The residents and businesses were against an elevated guideway, which would have been much less disruptive during construction than cut and cover tunneling, but they rejected it. And now, they're complaining about the tunneling. If it weren't for them, the money we would have saved from all that unnecessary tunneling could have gone towards designing and building larger and better stations. Hell, they can't even afford to paint the trains entirely. Any compensation could create precedent and dangerously affect all future road and transit construction projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 You might expect it but your expectations would be pointless, as you would not get it. If the city cared about business they would be better off lowering their taxes! I believe the city did reduce the taxes to business owners, I'm not entirely sure but I read something about it awhile ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 The residents and businesses were against an elevated guideway, which would have been much less disruptive during construction than cut and cover tunneling, but they rejected it. And now, they're complaining about the tunneling. If it weren't for them, the money we would have saved from all that unnecessary tunneling could have gone towards designing and building larger and better stations. Hell, they can't even afford to paint the trains entirely. Any compensation could create precedent and dangerously affect all future road and transit construction projects. They were just trying to position themselves in such a way that they built it elsewhere. They failed. Ironically, even a bored tunnel would be very disruptive as they would have ended up with extremely large excavations at all the major intersections that would have snarled up traffic just as badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 Some Canada Line construction workers have used the Canada Line's underground stations and tunnel as a mock "horror" documentary set: 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