Burnaby Mountain Gondola Transit. Margaret Wittgens TransLink Program Manager, Major Studies Vancouver, British Columbia

Transcription

1 Burnaby Mountain Gondola Transit Margaret Wittgens TransLink Program Manager, Major Studies Vancouver, British Columbia

2 Downtown Vancouver Why? SFU & UniverCity 21,000 people rising to 35,000 Millennium Line ProducMon Way University Stn -> m k.7 <- 2 gain. v e l me Bus #145 ~7.5 km/15 min one- way 3 min peak service 13,300 daily riders 2

3 Why Consider a Gondola? Volume GHGs Reliability 25,000 transit trips per day on and off Burnaby Mountain Diesel buses produce 1,700 tonnes Greenhouse Gas emissions per year Bus service to SFU is interrupted or delayed due to winter weather about 10 days/year 3

4 Overview and Status AlternaKves assessment and business case completed ConsultaKon & communicakons on results in May 4

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 5

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 6

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 7

8 Gondola InnovaKon 3S Hybrid of reversible ropeway and detachable gondola Local example at Whistler Peak- 2- Peak Large cabins (30-35 persons, seated) High capacity (up to 5000 pphpd) Wide tower spacing Travel speed km/h High wind tolerance ( km/h) 8

9 Technology Comparison Technology TransportaKon Environment Financial Deliverability Diesel bus Trolleybus SkyTrain LRT Rack railway Funicular Aerial tram Monocable gondola 3S gondola Accounts Urban Development Social & Community Scale relamve to base: Much Worse Worse Same Be[er Much Be[er 9

10 Technology Assessment Conclusion 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 3S Gondola Technology recommended: Low surface impacts Capacity & travel Kme High wind/snow tolerance Accessible, safe and quiet Energy efficient/low emission 10

11 Urban Gondolas 11

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) 12

13 Routes Evaluated Transit Hub ResidenMal Crossing Tank Farm ConservaMon Areas ResidenMal Forest Grove Lake City Burquitlam ProducMon Way - University 13

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 14

15 Forest Grove Oblique Not all trees are shown 15

16 Forest Grove View from below 16

17 Forest Grove View from gondola 17

18 Noise Comparison 90 Noise Level (dba at 15 m) Likely at low end of range due to tower height 0 Automobile Semi truck Trolley bus Diesel Bus SkyTrain Gondola 18

19 ResidenKal Proximity Reference Gondola Alignment Frequent diesel bus service 19

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 $113.7 Source: CH2M Hill, 2011$ 20

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 $3.16 Source: CH2M Hill, 2011$ 21

22 Ridership with Gondola Peak Hour, Peak DirecMon Riders 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, AM Peak Hour Ridership to Burnaby Mtn Trips a[racted to Gondola Note that modelling left all bus routes intact in future years service plans are based on the changes in ridership modelled Gondola Est. 50,000 weekday riders equivalent to 99 B-Line 22

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 23

24 Bus OperaKng and Capital Savings Savings Before Evergreen Line Reduction in bus operating costs (2011$ millions) Evergreen Line increases potenkal bus savings $4.5 $6.0 Bus Fleet Reduction With Evergreen Line Reduction in bus operating costs (2011$ millions) $7.1 $8.2 Bus Fleet Reduction

25 How much will it cost? Gondola would cost about $120 million but bus savings largely offset this over 25 years, especially with Evergreen Line NPV (millions, 2011$) Gondola Lifecycle Financial Analysis 6% discount rate 25- years of operakons No residual value assumed OperaKons & Maintenance Capital 0 Gondola Costs Bus Savings (today) Bus Savings (with Evergreen) 25

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 26

27 Benefit: Cost RaKo 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 Sources of Benefits Travel Time Savings, $355 Auto OperaMng Cost Savings, $55 Collision ReducMons, $41 Parking Cost Savings, $2 Vehicle Emission ReducMons, $2 Transit OperaMng Cost Savings, $92 Benefits in millions of 2011$, Present Value over 25 years Transit Capital Cost Savings, $17 27

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 28

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 29

30 Procurement Challenges Two known suppliers of ropeway systems Specialized technology that is likely to remain unique in the region Approximately 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 30

31 Procurement OpKons Overview Fewer contracts, greater risk transfer Public Sector Comparator Design- Build DB+OM DBOM D Design B Build O Operate M Maintain F Finance D B O M F D B O M F D B O M F D B O M F DBFOM D B O M F 31

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 ( ); withdrawn Awarded DBOM contract in 2009 Airport People Movers in North America Generally DB+OM 32

33 PotenKal Project Schedule Tasks Project Description Consultation Business Case Funding Approvals Preliminary Engineering Local Approvals (Zoning, Property, Access) Environmental Assessment Procurement Detailed Engineering Regulatory Approvals (Permits, Inspections) Construction Test & Commission Opening Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 33

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

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! 35

36 Thank you! 36