Posts Tagged: Burnaby Mountain

27
Mar

2013

Help Support The SFU Burnaby Mountain Gondola

Regular readers of The Gondola Project are familiar with the difficulties the Burnaby Mountain gondola has experienced getting off the ground (pun intended).

The proposed system – which is to serve the student, faculty and resident population of Simon Fraser University (SFU) – while having significant merit, has hit a couple of roadblocks along the way. But that hasn’t prevented the Simon Fraser University Association from throwing their collective weight in favour of it.

The student association has launched a grassroots campaign called I Like It On Top (pun presumably intended) as a means to convince politicians, locals and stakeholders that the “Gondola (should be) a priority by raising the profile of current transit issues surrounding Burnaby Mountain.”

And just to prove how serious they are about this; the students’ association has even put up two grand of cold, hard cash money as bounty for the SFU students who generate the most creative techniques and strategies to make this thing happen.

Have a good idea how to help them realize their goals? Submit your ideas by April 7th.

Wanna learn more about the SFU Burnaby Mountain Gondola? Download the full business case here.



Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.

21
Jun

2012

Could Vancouver’s Evergreen Line Help the Burnaby Mountain Gondola Get Built?

Nick Smith of Vancouver offers an interesting take on Vancouver’s planned Evergreen Skytrain Line and it’s impact on the shelved Burnaby Mountain Gondola plan.

His basic thesis is that the Evergreen Line will cause an increased need for the gondola and dramatically increase the benefit-cost-ratio of the system. As Nick says: “What this all amounts to is a higher Benefit Cost Ratio for the gondola project if the Evergreen Line is built. Which means that it actually makes more sense to build the Burnaby Mountain gondola upon completion of the Evergreen Line.”

As we pointed out earlier (here), the current Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) shows the gondola costing a scant $12m more than the business as usual situation. $12m in terms of long term public infrastructure building is basically within the margin of error and subject to so much subjectivity, it basically renders the point moot. But as the case for the gondola was so borderline negative, any positive impact on its BCR would tilt it into a recommendable project.

Most importantly, I think, is the fact that Nick’s discussion highlights how interwoven transit projects are. They don’t exist in isolation, and they should be analyzed as such. Too often people positioned the gondola as something that was sucking away funds from the Evergreen Line. That wasn’t the case, obviously, but it didn’t prevent people from believing so. (See the comments debate here for just such a situation.)

Now we have a not unreasonable argument that suggests the opposite.

 



Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.

19
Jan

2012

Burnaby Mountain Gondola Business Case: The 12 Million Dollar Problem

Last week Translink finally released the Business Case for the Burnaby Mountain Gondola Transit proposal. There were two main findings in the study:

Firstly, that the construction of the system would provide enormous benefits to transit riders, Translink and Simon Fraser University. After attaching a dollar figure to those benefits, the benefits could be valued at roughly half a billion dollars (all figures NPV 2011, CAD) over 25 years. (For a quick rundown of this aspect of the project, check out Stephen Rees blog post about it.)

Secondly, that to proceed with the construction of the Gondola would cost $12m more than the “Business As Usual” scenario of continuing to use diesel-fuelled buses well into the foreseeable future. Again, that $12m is over a 25 year period.

Which of these two findings do you think received the most press and attention?

The $12m, but of course. That number pretty much became the de facto argument against the project in most of the popular press the Business Case received (see The Atlantic Cities article titled Vancouver’s Gondola Dreams May Be Too Expensive To Come True for commentary typical of what’s out there).

In an economy like this, if you want to break the case for the gondola, all one really has to say is “it’s $12m more than what we’re doing now. Forget about it.”

There’s two problems with this argument, however:

Firstly, the $12m value is so relatively minuscule and so subject to error, it’s hard to take it seriously. This is a really important point but one that requires more time and space, so I’ll save it for another discussion next week.

Secondly – and notwithstanding the previous point – when viewed through a different lens, the $12m problem evaporates. In fact, when viewed through a different lens, the gondola doesn’t cost more than the “Business As Usual” scenario, it costs less.

Let me explain:

According to the Business Case, over a 25 year period, the gondola will cost $12m more than the BAU situation. But a sensitivity test conducted within the Business Case demonstrates “the project would break even relative to business as usual at year 28 (italics mine).” This makes logical sense as the longer the system is in operation, the less it costs over the amortization period of its useful life.

Continuing with that logic, one can reasonably assume that as of year 29 or 30 the system would likely cost less than the BAU scenario – presuming of course there are no major upgrades or replacements necessary – which the Business Case said would not be required. The Business Case explicitly states that “the expected life of the track ropes and the cabins is in the range of 20-40 years and 30 years has been assumed as the mid-point. All other components are assumed to require rehabilitation during the 25-year term of the Project.”

Which means the actual lifecycle of the system is closer to 30 years, rather than 25.

In other words, the conclusion about whether or not this system is deemed more or less expensive than the BAU scenario is highly dependant upon how one chooses to define the lifecycle of the system. No reason is given for why 25 years was chosen instead of 30 – or 28 for that matter.

Please understand that this isn’t me trying to manipulate numbers in such a way to demonstrate why this system should be built. I’m not calling shenanigans on anyone or suggesting any nefarious doings to bias the study against the gondola. Instead, I want to demonstrate how analyses such as these are far more subjective than we choose to recognize and decisions made about minor things like lifecycle costs can have dramatic impacts on the debates that surround infrastructure and policy decisions.

A quick Thought Experiment:

Imagine the study chose a lifespan of 29 or 30 years instead of 25. What happens then?

Well for starters The Atlantic Cities would be proclaiming that Vancouver’s Gondola Dreams May Save Taxpayers Millions. Suddenly the conclusion being bandied about by a dangerously non-inquisitive press is that the system will ultimately save taxpayers money, rather than cost them.

But that conclusion would be no more right or wrong than saying over 25 years the system will cost too much.

Or imagine that the study never once stated whether it would cost more or less and instead simply concluded that the system would break even with the BAU scenario at Year 28 of its lifespan. What does that do to the debate?

It changes things from a black-or-white, zero-sum game of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a more nuanced situation where decision-makers are forced to question if 28 years is an acceptable period of time for the system to pay for itself. That’s probably a better, more mature situation.

But that, of course, can be spun both by the press and the partisans such that it reflects whatever pre-conceived positions they already have.

Is 25 a better number than 28? One’s rounder than the other, but the other’s even instead of odd. Neither is objectively better or worse, but each have a dramatic and deeply subjective impact on our perceptions of a project.

And is 25 a better number than 30? For some people, maybe. For others, not so much. One can divide 30 evenly by the number 10; one cannot with 25. Such an argument in favour of 30 over 25 is meaningless, of course, but whatever argument one can muster in favour of 25 over 30 is equally as feckless.

Remember that when you hear things like Vancouver’s Gondola Dreams May Be Too Expensive To Come True.

Chances are, it’s a whole lot more complex – and deeply, deeply irrational – than that.



Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.

13
Jan

2012

Weekly Roundup: Vancouver’s Burnaby Mountain Gondola

After yesterday’s release of the Burnaby Mountain Gondola Business Case, there were so many articles and commentaries on the project around the internet, we thought it prudent to break from our typical structure and dedicate today’s Roundup exclusively to some of the more interesting reactions to that project:



Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.

12
Jan

2012

Burnaby Mountain Gondola Project: Business Case Now Available

The long in-gestation Burnaby Mountain Gondola Project Business Case has been released by Translink as well as the Alternatives Analysis.

The two documents, combined, are roughly 110 pages and as it’s been available for less than 24 hours, we’ve yet to go through it all. As such, we’re going to save our comments for next week where we’ll dedicate at least a few days to further analysis.

Until then, enjoy:



Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.

11
Nov

2011

Weekly Roundup: No Gondola At It Again

A couple highlights from around the world of Urban Gondolas, Gondola Transit, and Cable Propelled Transit:

  • The Philippine Daily Enquirer reports that the Philippines has (with little notice from the outside world, we might mention) implemented up to 100 ropeway systems throughout the country for agricultural purposes. The systems can carry both farmers and their products throughout the oftentimes difficult Phillippine topography.
  • A Letter to The Editor outlines a case against the proposed Squamish, British Columbia Sea-to-Sky Gondola.
  • German-language news program MoMa Reporter discusses the impact of Rio’s Complexo do Alemao Teleferico (around the 3:00 mark). As always, our German-speaking readers are invited to provide any translations in the comments below.
  • Fox 12 Oregon reports on aerial rescue exercises held for the Portland Aerial Tram. That in itself isn’t nearly as interesting as the fact that the report states that since 2007 the Tram has carried a whopping 6 million passengers. Pretty impressive for a two stop, 1 km long system.
  • And lastly, here’s a good example of a win-at-all-costs strategy that gives grassroots advocacy a bad name: The anti-Burnaby Mountain Gondola team over at No Gondola continues their creative reporting of facts in a recent post titled Burnaby Mountain Gondola Does Not Have Full Support of Local Residents. While the headline itself is correct, it’s highly misleading. Firstly, the survey they are reporting on shows that 47% of residents support the project with 39% opposed. Secondly, what project or program or policy ever has “full support” of local residents? Never happens. This is an incredibly weak argument equivalent to saying steak is a bad meal because not everyone in the world likes to eat beef. For more of No Gondola’s tactics see this post as well as the ugly debate that broke out last month over the term “cherry-picking.”

 



Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.

07
Oct

2011

Weekly Roundup: Techno-Fetishism, A Trapped Woman & More Burnaby Mountain

A few highlights from around the world of Urban Gondolas, Gondola Transit, and Cable Propelled Transit:

  • Jarrett Walker of Human Transit indulges in a little bit of “technology fetishism” by profiling the Wellington Cable Car.
  • Provincial Member of Parliament Kennedy Stewart indicates that he will launch his own public consultation process in regards to the controversial Burnaby Mountain Gondola.
  • The Chair of Tourism Squamish issues a public endorsement of the Squamish Sea to Sky Gondola.
  • Briton Nigel Carter is petitioning Brighton and Hove City Council to assess plans for a city-wide cable car. Information is scant, but phrases like “city-wide” don’t exactly inspire confidence in the scheme. If you’re British and think this is worth looking at, sign the e-petition here.
  • At a People Movers seminar in Britain, individuals associated with the London Thames Cable Car describe the benefits of cable cars and gondolas. Given the cost-overruns of the London Thames Cable Car, one can only hope they didn’t list cost-efficiency as one of said benefits.
  • Speaking of the London Thames Cable Car: It now has a sponsor – Emirates Airline. According to London Reconnections, Emirates will purchase the naming rights of the system for a whopping £36m. The system will be called The Emirates Air Line. Take a look:

 




Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.