Editor:
Re: Burnaby should look closely at TransLink's gondola business case, NOW letters, July 28
Apart from where he laughs at Forest Grove residents, the author here is absolutely correct – everyone should be looking at the business case for the gondola before making decisions on it.
Pay particular attention to its 2018 projected benefit-cost ratio of 1.8 – that is, benefits are 1.8 times greater than its cost, when generally any project over one gets a pass. Recent projects, such as the Evergreen Line and Canada Line, had BCRs of 1.27 and 1.25 respectively, showing the gondola is a better value per dollar spent.
Those that have followed the project for years are quick to point out that the last time a business case was conducted was 2011, the benefit-cost ratio then was 3.6.
Assuming that the author was correct in that the arithmetic was “flawed,” surely a halving of the benefits per dollar spent indicates prior mistakes have been fixed? I’d like to hear when TransLink admitted their numbers were wrong, as I’ve personally read through more than a hundred pages of community consultations and outreach from 2011 and found no admittance of the sort.
I’m sure the author will be thrilled to find out that SFU is actively working to nearly double the size of their residence to nearly meet the total number of students merely interested in residence by 2035.
This includes a brand-new building to house grad students at sub-market rates. It’s also worth noting UniverCity houses the Verdant development, where housing is offered to staff at below-market rates.
I will openly say, as a fourth-year economics student, that SFU’s “inflated rent demands” are no worse than the actual market we’re facing.
I don’t know anyone who has moved from residence to off-campus housing and pays less. If anything, residence is a bargain. It’s clear that SFU is working to get more housing underway, and is still working to keep things affordable even in this absolute disaster of a housing market.
An interesting thought: When the Expo Line was proposed, did Mr. Ferguson ask why the downtown employers didn’t just build affordable housing for their staff, or is it only when it’s a university that his line of thinking applies?
Why do universities have to hold all their staff and students, when no normal business is expected to house their staff and (assuming Mr. Ferguson’s “business” comment) their “customers”?
Many of my friends live at home, often out of preference and should not be forced into campus housing. Others, such as myself, cannot afford to live on campus or closer to campus, and thus continue to live at home. Some things in Mr. Ferguson’s letter don’t quite add up.
Colin Fowler, co-founder, Build the SFU Gondola
