Why Is Translink Building A Needless new Gondola On Burnaby Mountain?

[dumpthemonarchy]

You can find what Translink estimates to be the savings by following a link on the page you provided.



I'll quote them for you if you can't find them. It shouldn't be hard and you should have probably already tried considering you've formed such strident opinions about this. No amount of feigned indignation is going to make up for a wilful ignorance.

According to the backgrounder quoted below from the link, Translink will save about $1million per year. I didn't include what they estimated the public will save because that's not taxpayer money. So it will take at about 120 years to pay it off ($120 million/$1 million = 120 years), excluding maintenance costs-which we don't know yet. One hundred twenty years plus is far too long. Duh. Fail.

This gondola ought to be a slam dunk but it's not, especially when other projects like the Evergreen Line, the Patullo Bridge, and a third Seabus are hugely needed due to massive growth, are crumbling, or are packed for hours. Fail.

"$4.2 million in annual auto operating cost savings,​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

$1 to 3 million annual transit service operating cost savings"​

 

[Corduroy]

According to the backgrounder quoted below from the link, Translink will save about $1million per year. I didn't include what they estimated the public will save because that's not taxpayer money. So it will take at about 120 years to pay it off ($120 million/$1 million = 120 years), excluding maintenance costs-which we don't know yet. One hundred twenty years plus is far too long. Duh. Fail.

OK, so if we add the numbers you arbitrarily excluded in order to dishonesty make your rapidly unravelling point look better.

• $2.9 million in annual vehicle collision savings
• $4.2 million in annual auto operating cost savings
• $1 to 3 million annual transit service operating cost savings
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/bpotp/public_consultation/burnaby_mtn_gondola/Burnaby%20Mountain%20Gondola%20Transit%20Project%20Backgrounder.ashx

Just over 14 years to cover the costs with the savings if we use the low end of the operating costs estimate.

Here's a brief lesson in proper argumentation (a little bit of etiquette really). When using an estimate like the one above ($1 million to $3 million), the person using the numbers in a positive argument (that would be me) should use the lower estimate and the person arguing the negative (you) should use the higher.

For practical reasons, one might think you should be using the number that makes your argument stronger, but when you do that, your twisting of the facts to suit your argument is glaring. That ultimately weakens your position. Instead, you should take the higher number because that takes away a better statistic for me to use. You would have gotten 40 years instead of 120, which would still be too long, but you got greedy and your argument, like most else you've posted here, looks desperate and hyperbolic.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

OK, so if we add the numbers you arbitrarily excluded in order to dishonesty make your rapidly unravelling point look better.

• $2.9 million in annual vehicle collision savings
• $4.2 million in annual auto operating cost savings
• $1 to 3 million annual transit service operating cost savings
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/bpotp/public_consultation/burnaby_mtn_gondola/Burnaby%20Mountain%20Gondola%20Transit%20Project%20Backgrounder.ashx

Just over 14 years to cover the costs with the savings if we use the low end of the operating costs estimate.

Here's a brief lesson in proper argumentation (a little bit of etiquette really). When using an estimate like the one above ($1 million to $3 million), the person using the numbers in a positive argument (that would be me) should use the lower estimate and the person arguing the negative (you) should use the higher.

For practical reasons, one might think you should be using the number that makes your argument stronger, but when you do that, your twisting of the facts to suit your argument is glaring. That ultimately weakens your position. Instead, you should take the higher number because that takes away a better statistic for me to use. You would have gotten 40 years instead of 120, which would still be too long, but you got greedy and your argument, like most else you've posted here, looks desperate and hyperbolic.

Auto means car, and Translink pays money for buses not cars. Totally bogus. Collisions? Don't make me laugh. ICBC takes care of collisions. So this also is totally bogus. Translink, like most govt agencies/comissions/crowns, seem to have only a vague notion of where their money is spent. Yet they hire engineers that make more than the minimum wage, can't figure this.

Translink must know exactly how many buses and drivers work on the Burnaby Mtn run, yet they cannot express that figure or estimate coherently. And they do not express it coherently because the cost benefit analysis does not hold up. This is a gondola trophy.

And what will the yearly operating costs be? No answer. But they will be high.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Good article here discussing how the proposed gondola is a way to sell real estate atop Burnaby Mtn, its not really necessary.

Hidden motives for gondola plan?

 

[bill barilko]

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

The previous post should be deleted or explained.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

The good news lately is that the SFU Community Trust is quite quiet these days regarding the gondola trophy. Let's hope this abomination dies very soon.

 

[YukonJack]

Could either of the poster or any of the concerned respondents explain to me how this is relevant to me, being a resident of Winnipeg?

 

[TenPenny]

It's not always about you.

 

[bill barilko]

It's not always about you.

Hard words but true-bound to be some blubbering in Winterpeg tonight!

 

[YukonJack]

My work here is complete! I managed to irritate two suckers just because I had the audacity to question the relevance of a BC high rope conveyance in my life. OH, the horror!!!

I think there is too much BC and not enough common sense on this forum.

 

[TenPenny]

Pretty awesomely pathetic to want to validate an empty, meaningless life by wanting to know what every thread means in ones own life.

 

[bill barilko]

My work here is complete!

Glad to see the back of you!

 

[Corduroy]

Auto means car, and Translink pays money for buses not cars.

So do you think the savings Translink has declared are completely fabricated? That they won't be saving $4.3 million a year on "auto" operating costs, they just made it up and they would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you cracking the code and declaring that "auto" means car and Translink doesn't have cars, or "auto" doesn't mean say automotive. In their grand scheme to bamboozle the taxpayer, they let it slip by writing "auto" instead of "bus".

Totally bogus. Collisions? Don't make me laugh. ICBC takes care of collisions. So this also is totally bogus.

ICBC doesn't cover Translink's insurance. Translink is covered by Transportation Property & Casualty Company Inc., which is owned by Translink.

 

[YukonJack]

Glad to see the back of you!

When one steals the name of somebody else and then masquarades as the one whose identity he has stolen, all bets and all conventional decency are off.

Hey, phony name-thief, don't make me go there.

 

[bill barilko]

When one steals the name of somebody else and then masquarades as the one whose identity he has stolen, all bets and all conventional decency are off.Hey, phony name-thief, don't make me go there.

You've got to do better than that Old Fella!

 

[petros]

So do you think the savings Translink has declared are completely fabricated? That they won't be saving $4.3 million a year on "auto" operating costs, they just made it up and they would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you cracking the code and declaring that "auto" means car and Translink doesn't have cars, or "auto" doesn't mean say automotive. In their grand scheme to bamboozle the taxpayer, they let it slip by writing "auto" instead of "bus".



ICBC doesn't cover Translink's insurance. Translink is covered by Transportation Property & Casualty Company Inc., which is owned by Translink.

What are fuel and maintence costs on a bus that runs up and down Gaglardi? It took me one semester to burn out a set of pads and rotors and nearly killed by morons who can't drive in dry weather let alone snow countless times.

I'd have glady taken a gandola up and rode my bike down for free even though SFU is a ****ty school.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

So do you think the savings Translink has declared are completely fabricated? That they won't be saving $4.3 million a year on "auto" operating costs, they just made it up and they would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you cracking the code and declaring that "auto" means car and Translink doesn't have cars, or "auto" doesn't mean say automotive. In their grand scheme to bamboozle the taxpayer, they let it slip by writing "auto" instead of "bus".

ICBC doesn't cover Translink's insurance. Translink is covered by Transportation Property & Casualty Company Inc., which is owned by Translink.

These are savings of a sort for society I suppose, but no individual can budget they will save so many dollars per year. So I'm not impressed. These are very general estimates of savings by Translink that are not funds paid out by Translink. Translink deals with buses, they ought to focus on buses, then they could possibly make a persuasive financial argument but they can't, so the political firestorm over this.

Every day the Port Mann bridge becomes part of the Trans Canada parking lot, thus a new bridge is needed. The gondola is a head scratcher, the new Port Mann bridge is a no brainer. They are sneaky and dirty at Translink and SFU Community Trust.

What a new gondola simply means is more pressure to put a few more cents on the gas tax. I pay that, I would have to budget for that. And I don't want to.

 

[Corduroy]

These are savings of a sort for society I suppose, but no individual can budget they will save so many dollars per year. So I'm not impressed. These are very general estimates of savings by Translink that are not funds paid out by Translink.

The language of these sentences is ambiguous. Could you restate them some other way? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about.

Translink deals with buses, they ought to focus on buses, then they could possibly make a persuasive financial argument but they can't, so the political firestorm over this.

Translink also deals with the Sky Train and the Seabus. Translinks deals with "public transportation" which is what this gondola would be.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

The language of these sentences is ambiguous. Could you restate them some other way? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about.

Translink also deals with the Sky Train and the Seabus. Translinks deals with "public transportation" which is what this gondola would be.

Try to be real clear here. Translink, with its high priced help like brilliant engineers abd MBAs, has to provide figures how a gondola will be a major improvement in cost or convenience. It's miasmic. It's all about the money honey! Show me the money savings! Save the touchy feely "savings" for some other losers. Comprende?