Burnaby Mountain Gondola Transit

Margaret Wittgens TransLink

Program Manager, Major Studies Vancouver, British Columbia

2  

Why? SFU  &  UniverCity  21,000  people  rising  to  35,000  

Downtown  Vancouver  

<- 2.7 km ->

300 m elev. gain Bus  #145  

~7.5  km/15  min  one-­‐way  3  min  peak  service  13,300  daily  riders  

Millennium  Line  ProducMon  Way  –  University  Stn  

3  

Why  Consider  a  Gondola?  

Volume  §  25,000  transit  trips  per  day  on  and  off  

Burnaby  Mountain  Air  Quality  §  Diesel  buses  produce  1,700  tonnes  

Greenhouse  Gas  emissions  per  year  Reliability  §  About  10  days  a  year,  bus  service  to  SFU  is  

interrupted  or  delayed  due  to  winter  weather  §  Steep  grades  make  it  difficult  for  buses  to  

navigate  and  trip  Kmes  are  increased.  

25,000  transit  trips  per  day  on  and  off  Burnaby  

Mountain  

Volume

8% Active

Regional  targets  2041  transit  trips  per  day  on  and  

off  Burnaby  Mountain  

25,000

GHGs

Diesel  buses  produce    

1,700 tonnes  Greenhouse  Gas  

emissions  per  year  

Reliability

Bus  service  to  SFU  is  interrupted  or  delayed  due  to  winter  weather  

about  

10 days/year  

4  

Overview  and  Status  

§  AlternaKves  assessment  and  business  case  completed  

§  ConsultaKon  &  communicaKons  on  results  in  May  

5  

Study  Partners  

§  Business  Case  led  by  TransLink  

§  City  of  Burnaby  is  Local  Approving  Authority  §  Staff  advice  on  approvals  

process  and  City  interests  

§  Project  also  consulted  with:  §  SFU  Community  Trust  §  Simon  Fraser  University  §  BC  Ministry  of  TransportaKon  

&  Infrastructure  

§  PPP  Canada  funding  

6  

Project  Team  

§  MulK-­‐disciplinary  consultant  team  §  CH2M  Hill  –  overall  planning/

engineering  lead  §  PriceWaterhouseCoopers  –  financial  §  Partnerships  BC  –  procurement  

analysis  §  Art  Pearce  –  City  of  Portland  manager  

for  Portland  Aerial  Tram  §  Gmuender  Engineering  –  

independent  ropeway  engineer  §  Jeff  Herold  –  contracKng  specialist  

7  

Technologies  Considered  

§  Ground-­‐based  §  Diesel  bus  (Base  Case)  §  Trolleybus  §  LRT  (Light  Rail  Transit)  §  GLT  (Guided  Light  Transit)  §  PRT  (Personal  Rapid  Transit)  §  Rack  Railway  §  Funicular  §  SkyTrain  

§  Aerial  §  Aerial  Tramway/Reversible  

Ropeway  §  Gondolas  

§  Monocable  §  2S  &  3S  (2  rope  and  3  rope)  §  Funitel  

8  

•  Large  cabins  (30-­‐35  persons,  18-­‐24  seated)  

•  High  capacity  (up  to  5000  pphpd)  •  Wide  tower  spacing  •  Travel  speed  20  -­‐  27  km/h  •  High  wind  tolerance  (80-­‐110  km/h)  

Gondola  InnovaKon  –  3S  

•  Hybrid  of  reversible  ropeway  and  detachable  gondola    

•  Local  example  at  Whistler  •  Peak-­‐2-­‐Peak  

9  

Technology  Comparison  

Technology   TransportaKon   Environment   Financial   Deliverability   Urban  Development  

Social  &  Community  

Diesel  bus  

Trolleybus  

SkyTrain  

LRT  

Rack  railway  

Funicular  

Aerial    tram  

Monocable  gondola  

3S  gondola  

Scale  relaMve  to  base:     Much  Worse   Worse   Same   Be[er   Much  Be[er  

Accounts  

10  

Technology  Assessment  Conclusion  

§  3S  Gondola  Technology  recommended:  §  Low  surface  impacts  §  Capacity  &  travel  Kme  §  High  wind/snow  tolerance  §  Accessible,  safe  and  quiet  §  Energy  efficient/low  emission  

§  Ground-­‐based  systems  not  recommended  §  High  surface  impacts  §  No  Kme  savings  §  Cost  

§  Aerial  tramway  has  inadequate  capacity  and  low  frequency  

§  Monocable  gondola  has  high  surface  impacts  and  low  wind  resistance  

11  

Urban  Gondolas  

12  

Alignment  ConsideraKons  

§  Minimize  neighbourhood  impact  §  Minimize  ConservaKon  Area  

impacts  §  Maximize  integraKon  with  

SkyTrain  and  SFU/UniverCity  §  Avoid  kinked  alignments  §  Consider  tower  locaKons  in  

assessment  §  Minimize  length  (and  associated  

cost  &  travel  Kme)  

13  

Routes  Evaluated  

“Burquitlam”  

ProducMon  Way  -­‐  University  

Lake  City  

Transit  Hub  

Tank  Farm  

ConservaMon  Areas  

Forest  Grove  

ResidenMal  

ResidenMal  Crossing  

14  

Recommended  Route  

§  Minimizes  residenKal  crossings  in  Forest  Grove  

§  Short  crossing  of  Burnaby  Mtn  ConservaKon  Area  §  Few  trails  below  

§  Direct  from  SkyTrain  to  centre  of  Burnaby  Mountain  

§  Avoids  most  industrial  properKes  and  “no-­‐go”  tank  farms  

§  Good  opKons  for  low-­‐impact  tower  locaKons  

 

15  

Forest  Grove  –  Oblique  

Not  all  trees  are  shown  

16  

Forest  Grove  –  View  from  below  

17  

Forest  Grove  –  View  from  gondola  

18  

Noise  Comparison  

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

70  

80  

90  Au

tomob

ile  

Semi  truck  

Trolley  bu

s  

Diesel  Bus  

SkyTrain  

Gond

ola  

Noise  Level  (d

BA  at  1

5  m)  

Likely  at  low  end  of  range  due  to  tower  height  

19  

ResidenKal  Proximity  

Frequent  diesel  bus  service  

Reference  Gondola  Alignment  

20  

Capital  Cost  EsKmate  

Item   Cost  (millions)  3S  ropeway  system   $40.8  Terminals  &  tower  civil  works   $18.2  Start-­‐up  costs  (permits,  spare  parts,  training...)   $0.6  Transit  system  integraKon   $0.7  ConKngencies  &  risk,  cost  escalaKon   $17.9  Property  (net  of  recoveries/resale)   $23.5  Owner’s  project  management   $12.0  Total   $113.7  Source:  CH2M  Hill,  2011$  

21  

OperaKng  Cost  EsKmate  

Annual    Cost  (millions)  

Salaries   $1.72  OperaKons   $0.43  Overhead   $0.23  Materials  &  equipment   $0.09  Civil  elements   $0.18  Security  &  Policing   $0.20  Contract  Management   $0.25  Total   $3.16  Source:  CH2M  Hill,  2011$  

22  

Ridership  with  Gondola  

0  

500  

1,000  

1,500  

2,000  

2,500  

3,000  

3,500  

4,000  

135   143   144   145   Gondola  

Peak  Hou

r,  Pe

ak  Dire

cMon

 Ride

rs  

AM  Peak  Hour  Ridership  to  Burnaby  Mtn  2009  2021  2041  

Note that modelling left all bus routes “intact” in future years – service plans are based on the changes in ridership modelled

§  Est. 50,000 weekday riders– equivalent to 99 B-Line

Trips  a[racted  to  Gondola  

23  

Future  Assumed  Bus  Service  

Routes  assuming  Evergreen  Line:  

§  135  –  SFU/Downtown  via  HasKngs  

§  144  –  SFU/Metrotown  via  Duthie  etc.  

§  Gondola  –  SFU/ProducKon  Way-­‐University  Stn  (145  early/  late  and  during  mtce.  closures)  

§  143  –  Burquitlam-­‐  Coquitlam  Stn  via  Como  Lake  

24  

Bus  OperaKng  and  Capital  Savings  

§  Evergreen  Line  increases  potenKal  bus  savings  

Savings 2021 2041 Before Evergreen Line

Reduction in bus operating costs (2011$ millions)

$4.5 $6.0

Bus Fleet Reduction 17 23 With Evergreen Line

Reduction in bus operating costs (2011$ millions)

$7.1 $8.2

Bus Fleet Reduction 26 33

25  

§  Gondola  would  cost  about  $120  million  but  bus  savings  largely  offset  this  over  25  years,  especially  with  Evergreen  Line  

How  much  will  it  cost?  

0  

20  

40  

60  

80  

100  

120  

140  

160  

180  

Gondola  Costs   Bus  Savings  (today)  Bus  Savings  (with  Evergreen)  

NPV

 (millions,  2011$)  

Gondola  Lifecycle  Financial  Analysis  

OperaKons  &  Maintenance  Capital  

• 6%  discount  rate  •   25-­‐years  of  operaKons  •   No  residual  value  assumed  

26  

QuanKfied  Benefits  

§  1.5  million  annual  hours  of  transit  travel  Kme  savings  

§  500,000  annual  hours  of  auto  travel  Kme  savings  

§  26.1  million  reducKon  in  annual  vehicle  kilometres  travelled  §  $4.14  million  in  auto  operaKng  cost  

savings  §  $3.1  million  saving  in  collision  costs  §  5,250  tonnes  in  reduced  GHG  

emissions  ($130,000  in  potenKal  carbon  credits)  

§  Common  Air  Contaminant  (CAC)  reducKons  

27  

Benefit:  Cost  RaKo  

Travel  Time  Savings,  $355    

Auto  OperaMng  Cost  Savings,  

$55    

Collision  ReducMons,  $41    

Parking  Cost  Savings,  $2    

Vehicle  Emission  

ReducMons,  $2    

Transit  OperaMng  Cost  Savings,  $92    

Transit  Capital  Cost  Savings,  

$17    

Sources  of  Benefits  

Benefits  in  millions  of  2011$,  Present  Value  over  25  years  

§  Present  values  over  25  years  §  Benefits:  $564  m  §  Costs:  $157  m  

§  Benefit:  Cost  raKo  =  3.6  

§  Without  Evergreen  Line  BCR  is  slightly  lower  at  3.25  

 

28  

Public  Opinion  Survey  

§  Conducted  for  SFU  Community  Trust  in  early  2009  

§  Student  reacKon  §  74%  support  from  SFU  transit-­‐using  

students  §  88%  of  transit-­‐using  SFU  students  

would  use  it  

§  Burnaby  resident  support  §  80%  support  

29  

Procurement  ObjecKves  

§  Achieve  best  value  §  Encourage:  

§  CompeKKon  §  Schedule  and  cost  certainty  §  Appropriate  risk  allocaKon  §  Long  term  safety  and  reliability  of  the  system  

§  ObjecKves:  §  Meet  the  project’s  financial  goals  and  constraints  §  Ensure  a  compeKKve  and  marketable  transacKon  §  A  fair,  open  and  transparent  process  §  Responsiveness  to  municipal  and  stakeholder  issues  

30  

Procurement  Challenges  

§  Two  known  suppliers    of  ropeway  systems  

§  Specialized  technology  that  is  likely  to  remain  unique  in  the  region  

§  Approximately  70-­‐30  split  in  costs  between  ropeway  and  civil  works  (terminals,  tower  foundaKons,  uKlity  relocaKons)  

§  Appropriate  allocaKon  of  risk  for  integraKon  of  ropeway  and  civil  works  

§  Project  cost  on  the  lower  range  of  infrastructure  finance  projects  

31  

Procurement  OpKons  Overview  

D  Design  

B  Build  

O  Operate  

M  Maintain  

F  Finance  

Public  Sector  Comparator  

Design-­‐Build  

DBOM  

DB+OM  

DBFOM  

D   B   O   M   F  

D   B   O   M   F  

D   B   O   M   F  

D   B   O   M   F  

D   B   O   M   F  

Fewer  con

tracts,  greater  risk  tran

sfer  

32  

Experience  Elsewhere  

§  Portland  Aerial  Tram  §  General  Contractor  at  Risk  Model  §  Two  DB  contracts  (Ropeway  &  Civil  Works)  §  5  yr  operaKng  agreement  with  ropeway  supplier  &  

hospital  

§  Roosevelt  Island  Tram  RehabilitaKon  §  DB+OM  §  Ropeway  supplier  awarded  OM  contract  

§  BART  Oakland  Airport  Connector  §  DBFOM  procurement  (2005-­‐08);  withdrawn  §  Awarded  DBOM  contract  in  2009  

§  Airport  People  Movers  in  North  America  §  Generally  DB+OM  

33  

PotenKal  Project  Schedule  

Year  1 Year  2 Year  3 Year  4Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Project  Description

Consultation

Business  Case

Funding  Approvals

Preliminary  EngineeringLocal  Approvals  (Zoning,  Property,  Access)Environmental  Assessment

Procurement

Detailed  EngineeringRegulatory  Approvals  (Permits,  Inspections)Construction

Test  &  Commission

Opening

Tasks

34  

ConsultaKon  

§  Phase  I  §  Pre-­‐consultaKon  with  known  

 stakeholder  groups  (Nov  2010)  §  Phase  II  

§  MulK-­‐level  consultaKon  on  reference  alignment  (May  2011)  

§  Property  Owner  sessions  (3+)  §  Stakeholder  Small  Group  

MeeKngs  (5)  §  Open  Houses  (2)  §  Online  ConsultaKon  

§  Phase  III  §  Pre-­‐implementaKon  design  and  construcKon  (TBD)  

§  Municipal  ConsultaKon  §  Workshops  with  Burnaby  Council  –  Mar-­‐Apr  2011  

35  

Key  Lessons  

§  Partnerships  are  vital  –  especially  with  a  novel  technology  §  Province,  municipality,  

insKtuKons  §  Affected  residents  §  Safety  regulator  §  Internally  

§  Involve  experts  and  suppliers  to  fill  knowledge  gaps  

§  Be  as  flexible  as  possible  to  address  concerns  

§  Take  advantage  of  a  “fun”  project!  

36  

Thank  you!