SFU/Burnaby Mtn Gondola | Proposed

[mezzanine]

Thanks robert.

IMO a politically-wise judgement from translink. At the end of the day, if burnaby council has no support for this plan, then it's dead in the water. I still think that $25 million extra over 12 years is small, and if the canada line is any indication, i think that TL is being over-cautious with potential risk.

no sense in wasting decision-making capital on an uphill fight.

[twoNeurons]

I wonder if the $12M could be made up by charging a small supplement fee to both SFU (via a modest increase to UPASS) and the Univercity development.

A $1 increase to the SFU UPASS would raise ~$400,000 / year.

Realistically, mezzanine's right. Translink is basically saying, it's shelved until Burnaby or Victoria wants it.

[allan_kuan]

Well... given the extra burdens that post secondary schools in general place on the transit system, a metro-wide price increase of the U-Pass to concession monthly pass levels would help fund a lot of extra supplemental services and projects to alleviate crowding on routes that go to or pass by local colleges and universities. Unfortunately, I'm pretty much alone (even more so when I'm a student) when it comes to supporting such an increase. I guess in a way we get what we are only willing to pay for. =S

[theho]

It is pretty extraordinary... this is about 480k a year. Considering all the stakeholders: the student body, UniverCity, SFU, Burnaby, the province and perhaps the federal government. Split between all these entities it seems like a pretty easy pill (naively divided by 5 is a mere 96k) to swallow for a project that is essentially a slam dunk ready to go.

[Zassk]

You have to ask what concrete benefits we will get for that $480K/year. What are we trying to achieve with the gondola? Apparently we are not going to achieve a cost savings...

- Are we trying to reduce the number of days that snow makes travel up the hill impossible? Would the university operate on those days if the gondola was in effect?

- Are we trying to speed up the travel time for students? Is there a specific reason why we want to spend money to save each rider a few minutes?

- Are we trying to eliminate pollution? Is $480K/yr cost-effective, or would it be better spent on some other pollution source associated with the university?

Incidentally, do we know whether lineups will be longer or shorter than for the buses during peak hours? I didn't see this mentioned when I browsed the business plan. One has to assume that the queue time will be quite different for small frequent cars vs. large infrequent buses, even if overall capacity is the same. If the biggest time spent travelling up/down the hill is waiting to board, then the overall time savings for the gondola might be little or none (or even worse than buses).

[idunno]

I would say that this is pretty good news - the business case recommends the gondola project after all! All we need is the funding in a future capital plan.

[allan_kuan]

Originally Posted by Zassk

You have to ask what concrete benefits we will get for that $480K/year. What are we trying to achieve with the gondola? Apparently we are not going to achieve a cost savings...

- Are we trying to reduce the number of days that snow makes travel up the hill impossible? Would the university operate on those days if the gondola was in effect?

Most likely yes on both points. It's worth noting that the bus loop got closed once this term already, and last winter there were at least two weather-related closures that I could remember.

Originally Posted by Zassk

- Are we trying to speed up the travel time for students? Is there a specific reason why we want to spend money to save each rider a few minutes?

Yes, the commute will be speeded up, but reliability will also be drastically improved. I recall my first semester here in Fall 2010, and the lineups at 8:00 were crazy long due to all the major math classes starting at 8:30. This wasn't helped by the fact that apparently the 135 and 145 are interlined, and late buses on the 135 towards SFU could ask their supervisors to skip their 145 run to get back on schedule. I dunno if the practice still exists (hopefully not) but back then that caused really long delays. More on this below.

Originally Posted by Zassk

- Are we trying to eliminate pollution? Is $480K/yr cost-effective, or would it be better spent on some other pollution source associated with the university?

Realistically pollution will not be eliminated... but you're probably meaning more of a reduction in pollution. Given that engines in general are most inefficient at climbing hills and the fact that the buses are generally crush-loaded at peak periods, there will most likely be some savings with regards to emissions produced. The reliability and frequency of a gondola, however, may also entice more car commuters to park at Production Way station instead of commuting up and down the hill, which may reduce total vehicle emissions overall.

Originally Posted by Zassk

Incidentally, do we know whether lineups will be longer or shorter than for the buses during peak hours? I didn't see this mentioned when I browsed the business plan. One has to assume that the queue time will be quite different for small frequent cars vs. large infrequent buses, even if overall capacity is the same. If the biggest time spent travelling up/down the hill is waiting to board, then the overall time savings for the gondola might be little or none (or even worse than buses).

This comparison is interesting and agreeably may require some more number-crunching and consultation with TransLink as SFU controls when classes start and end, which are generally the busiest periods for buses atm. Having said that, given that maintenance and car storage for the gondola will be at the terminals and not at some remote place like BTC, and given that the cars do not really require a certain ratio of drivers or attendants in relation to the number of cars in service, the service may be more flexible in coping with drastic fluctuations in demand without substantially raising fuel, labour, and admin costs associated with scheduling and calling in extra buses and drivers for shorter on-demand runs.

[cornholio]

So 12mill / 25 years = $480,000 per year in added costs.

With 1.6million in annual hour savings for users, that is (480/1600 = 30cents per hour) a cost of 30cents per hour saved. Can anyone name me a person whos hour of time is worth LESS then 30cents.

Even at the new minimum wage of $10.50(1.6mill * (10.50-0.30) = $16.32mill per year in time savings to users, or $408 million over 25 years.

How can this not be built now??? Translink and our government are responsible for making the right choices to improve the quality of our lives, this is EXACTLY the type of project that has a tremendous net benefit for all of us, these types of projects add up and make sure that we are all better off, makes sure we keep being a first world wealthy country that everyone wants to live in.

Add to this the benefit of reliability, reduced emissions, increased ridership and I dont understand not building this now unless translink is playing a game to suck more money out of the stake holders(SFU, Prov. Gov, Fed. Gov, Burnaby, users and developers).

On top of that any P3 partnership, like say the future redevelopment of some of the co-op housing on the mountain along the route and extra station on Forest Grove drive could net some good change. The co-op's under use the land, land that is extremely valuable due to its location(view, parkland, central location). Something like the Little Mountain development could replace the housing and add density, the housing isnt at the end of its life span but it is getting old and has had various issues already.

Another way to look at it is that with a 7min travel time(60/7 = 8.57....30cents/8.57 = 3.5cents per trip.

So if they were to charge a 3.5cent surcharge per trip then they would break even plus all the other benefits I mentioned and not taking in to account any partnerships for funding.

I just dont understand not proceeding with this immediately. I dont care how broke I am but if I am a student I will shell out that 3.5 cents twice a day to get up and down without blinking a eye taking the time savings and reliability in to account, the views and experience of the trip would be a bonus.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I just dont understand not proceeding with this immediately.

--------------------------------------------

Mayor Derek Corrigan agreed with the group that the gondola project is not financially feasible.

"While TransLink goes out into the community and stirs things up, there isn't any money to be able to put on this gondola project," Corrigan said in a phone interview Monday. "TransLink should not be spending money on gon-dolas when it cannot afford the existing service."

The company has told the public and the media repeatedly that there isn't enough money in the budget to cover current costs, he said.

"If that's true, why are they going into additional expenses, like the gondola?" Corrigan said. "It's never been a priority to the region."



Read more: http://www.burnabynow.com/Gondola+ba...#ixzz1jJd4VIv1

3.5 cents twice a day? That's joe taxpayer's 3.5 cents and translink won't have a penny if I can help it!

"You cannot go on being treated like sheep," he told other Metro mayors. "We have to have our own Boston tea party."

http://www.aldergrovestar.com/news/131346338.html

[twoNeurons]

I suspect Translink is trying to raise cash from the university. Whether that's an increase in UPASS or other.

Remember, they do eventually NEED to increase the UPASS to keep up with inflation. The way the current agreements are with SFU and UBC, that's requires a vote.

If they can use "increased service" as a basis for changing the way the UPASS is paid for (I think it should somehow be tied to inflation, or have set increase points every few years) it will make it easier to get UBC, which has the lowest UPASS rate to increase their rates with the promise of the M-Line or Rapid Bus to UBC.

That's my 2¢

[nname]

Well, consider most capital project are cost shared between provincial and federal government for 1/3 each. TransLink just need to get them on board and they can actually save like 70 millions over 25 years.

The same can also apply for bus replacement, but that have much more operating cost component (no cost share) and very little capital component...

[fredinno]

Well, we can slow down, and risk vancouver's transit and intrfracture improval, or not.
I do agree about you guys, but hopefully the will remove the taxes after building...everything takes money...

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Well, we can slow down, and risk vancouver's transit and intrfracture improval, or not.
I do agree about you guys, but hopefully the will remove the taxes after building...everything takes money...

lol do naive. When have you ever seen a temporary tax stay temporary?

[SpongeG]

the coquihala was a temp tax or toll and it was pulled eventually

[Zassk]

The Coquihalla is a bad (but typical) example because it was supposed to be lifted as soon as the fwy was paid for, but was not.

[racc]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

--------------------------------------------

3.5 cents twice a day? That's joe taxpayer's 3.5 cents and translink won't have a penny if I can help it!

http://www.aldergrovestar.com/news/131346338.html

Likely the Gondola and other transit projects will save taxpayers and drivers a lot more than they cost. The business case estimated $3.1 – 3.4 million per year in reduced collision costs. That would mean lower ICBC rates and less money paid by drivers in other costs associated collision. That also means fewer injuries and deaths to drivers and other road users. Hard to put a price tag on that. The 26.1 – 29.2 million fewer vehicle kms travelled by automobile per year also means less congestion on the roads in the region. Again, a benefit for those who want to or must drive.

Bottom line is that transit is simply a much more cost effective way to get people where they need to go both for the individual and the taxpayer.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by galeforcewinds

lol do naive. When have you ever seen a temporary tax stay temporary?

No, the price of everything is getting higher so more taxes..:-(

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by racc

Likely the Gondola and other transit projects will save taxpayers and drivers a lot more than they cost. The business case estimated $3.1 – 3.4 million per year in reduced collision costs. That would mean lower ICBC rates and less money paid by drivers in other costs associated collision. That also means fewer injuries and deaths to drivers and other road users. Hard to put a price tag on that. The 26.1 – 29.2 million fewer vehicle kms travelled by automobile per year also means less congestion on the roads in the region. Again, a benefit for those who want to or must drive.

Bottom line is that transit is simply a much more cost effective way to get people where they need to go both for the individual and the taxpayer.

Less Fuel used= greener and more saving for translink=less taxes

[SpongeG]

the emirates air line opened in london last week, what if this gondola were to get a sponsored name? to inject cash into getting it going?

• Video Link

[andasen]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

the emirates air line opened in london last week, what if this gondola were to get a sponsored name? to inject cash into getting it going?

A risky proposition, of the companies who would be in the financial position to sponsor this there are only a select few who could do it and not set off protests. SFU may not be the radical campus anymore but there are still a decent population of students/faculty that this would be be too much.