Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One
Haha! You obviously dont know the antics of the Burnaby mayor very well.
He would likely take the side of the residents living below the proposed allignment who are against it.
Seriously, this guy is against everything, it is honestly baffling at times. The only thing that would make him side with voting yes is if the entire Hastings stretch were to get a skytrain train line, and every other city were to get nothing.
|
He has nothing to worry about, he already got the Millennium Line (which was built before he was elected.) Also... he was chairman of BC Transit before Translink came into existence. Arguably he's the best qualified Mayor to say No, because it won't hurt his popularity. His wife is the MLA for the same area. None of the Bridges are in Burnaby, and the Skytrain and many bus routes are required to go through Burnaby.
I'd have liked to see the Gondola, but I think the business case wasn't quite as strong needed to justify it. 157 million to service 40,000 people by 2030.
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Docu...ss%20Case.ashx
The Business case entirely leveraged the cost savings to Translink, rather than benefits to the rest of Metro Vancouver.
50% of students come from Production Way and 27% come from Burrard (but requires twice as many buses,) 12 % from Coquitlam and 10% from Metrotown.
Also consider the alternatives:
Quote:
Diesel bus (Base Case)
- Ground-based technologies:
-- Bus Rapid Transit – Trolleybus
-- Light Rail Transit
-- Guided Light Transit
-- Funicular
-- Rack Railway
-- Rail Rapid Transit – SkyTrain
-- Personal Rapid Transit
-- Escalator
- Aerial technologies:
-- Aerial Tram/Reversible Ropeway
- Gondola Lifts:
-- Monocable
-- 2S
-- 3S
-- Funitel
|
A Funicular or Rack Railway might be better choices for safety and remove some of the NIMBY factor. Pushing the Skytrain, or any light rail really, up the mountain however would be extremely expensive.
Hence all the ground based options were eliminated. The only one close is the Rack Railway, and it fails on surface impact.
Quote:
2.10 Bus Savings
A primary motivation for considering alternatives to bus service to Burnaby Mountain is the reduction in operating costs for bus service that could occur if bus services are replaced by rapid transit.
|
Read: Less bus drivers, roughly 50 ($113 Million over 30 years, versus $54 million for the Gondola.) Building it would pay for itself in 30 years from the savings in bus drivers and maintenance alone.
So why did Corrigan say no? Probably a protest vote on the entire 10 year plan. NIMBY's could have played a role as well.
Note how that Optimistically it would also have been built and in operation already.