Upload
lamdung
View
223
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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!