Burnaby Mountain Gondola | Proposed

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by s211

Some? Frequent, actually.

^Fair enough, but the SFU Gondola would not be stretching between two mountains, so the wind loads will be far less severe.

Fundamentally, a gondola is an idea that is too good and too sound to languish forever. I did the original feasibility study for SFU Community Trust about 12 years ago, prior to validation by Bryce Tupper Engineers, and well before the business case analysis CH2MHill prepared for Translink. In the intervening years capital cost estimates have continued to go up, but so, too, do the operating costs for business as usual bus service. Regardless, the core value proposition of a gondola system is the delivery of better financial value to Translink, better level of service to users, less operating cost risk, far lower greenhouse gas emissions, and incomparably greater weather dependability than continuing to use buses.

I have believed from day one that a Burnaby Mountain Gondola Rapid Transit (GRT, my term, incidentally) system is a perfect fit for a P3 DFBOM contract a la the Canada Line and I remain convinced that this is the best way forward. It would be a discrete service with all technology and capabilities contained on-site and would not require the acquisition of new off-site capabilities, technology, or facilities on the part of Translink or its subsidiaries. The base station would be integrated with Production Way-SFU station with full fare integration and Compass access control. The right of way shoots straight up the mountain over exclusively public land, with the exception of three strata townhouses, and lines up with the upper bus loop and Cornerstone plaza at the top of the mountain. It would mirror SkyTrain hours of operation with timing to ensure the passengers could head down the mountain in time to catch the last train of the night and ensure that it take them back up the mountain. 30 passengers per cabin, 34 second departure frequency, 6.5 minute travel time top to bottom, 19 hours a day of service, 7 days a week, all for less money than buses.

Anyway, I'm passionate about the project and have grown impatient at the time it has taken to come to fruition.

[Galaxy]

I love the gondola and hope the funding and support around it will come soon. I was thinking after all the talk on the forum about wind what if we tunneled down into Burnaby mountain from the top somewhere on SFU's campus and build some high-speed elevators and a platform within the tunnel section of the evergreen extension[that passes under Burnaby mountain] therefore preventing this entire wind problem altogether. I imagine it probably is seen as a crazy idea but thought I would post and see what you guys all thought. The Millenium line would, therefore, be the main line for both UBC and SFU.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

...the Whistler-Blackcomb gondola has had some closures due to wind.

That gondola is pretty extreme, one up to SFU would have nowhere near the same huge gap between tower pairs and I'm sure that would help with its wind resistance.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That gondola is pretty extreme, one up to SFU would have nowhere near the same huge gap between tower pairs and I'm sure that would help with its wind resistance.

The SFU Gondola at its highest is also 100-ish metres below the Peak 2 Peak at its lowest, so that helps too.

[Aroundtheworld]

I'm surprised no studies have looked into the viability of having the gondola run from Lougheed Station. Yes you would probably need a turning station, but it also means you wouldn't have to run Expo Line trains to Production Way.

Now why on earth would this be important? Well it means that you won't have to limit frequency on the Millennium Line in the future. Right now this isn't a big deal as Millennium Line trains run every 3-4 minutes during peak times. However, when it gets extended to UBC, 3-4 minutes likely won't be enough. Yes longer trains will help and you could also short-run trains as well (which is not an elegant solution), but why limit future capacity when you don't have to.

Maybe running the gondola from Lougheed is just way too expensive compared to Production Way that restricting future frequencies is justified. I haven't seen the studies though that demonstrate this.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Well it means that you won't have to limit frequency on the Millennium Line in the future. Right now this isn't a big deal as Millennium Line trains run every 3-4 minutes during peak times. However, when it gets extended to UBC, 3-4 minutes likely won't be enough. Yes longer trains will help and you could also short-run trains as well (which is not an elegant solution), but why limit future capacity when you don't have to.

Maybe running the gondola from Lougheed is just way too expensive compared to Production Way that restricting future frequencies is justified. I haven't seen the studies though that demonstrate this.

The track switches at Lougheed are still a limiting factor because in all cases you'd end up with Expo Line trains needing to share about 3 metres of track with Millennium Line trains in between switches. Plus you'd have to go back to the wrong-railing and switching around Burquitlam, which was proving to be a source of routine problems.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Good points. Remind me why they thought a branch line that loops back on itself was a good idea (aside from the NDP ridings)? Could've run from VCC-Clark to Port Moody instead.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I'm surprised no studies have looked into the viability of having the gondola run from Lougheed Station. Yes you would probably need a turning station, but it also means you wouldn't have to run Expo Line trains to Production Way.

Now why on earth would this be important? Well it means that you won't have to limit frequency on the Millennium Line in the future. Right now this isn't a big deal as Millennium Line trains run every 3-4 minutes during peak times. However, when it gets extended to UBC, 3-4 minutes likely won't be enough. Yes longer trains will help and you could also short-run trains as well (which is not an elegant solution), but why limit future capacity when you don't have to.

Maybe running the gondola from Lougheed is just way too expensive compared to Production Way that restricting future frequencies is justified. I haven't seen the studies though that demonstrate this.

This would make a 3rd of the Lougheed Mall redevelopment unusable for towers (and possible unusable in general, depending on the slack) and would cut the town centre as a whole in half.

Originally Posted by dpogue

The track switches at Lougheed are still a limiting factor because in all cases you'd end up with Expo Line trains needing to share about 3 metres of track with Millennium Line trains in between switches. Plus you'd have to go back to the wrong-railing and switching around Burquitlam, which was proving to be a source of routine problems.

You could do the opposite of what's done in Surrey and short-turn 1/2 the trains at Commercial-Broadway.

Or double the Lougheed T. Centre Station. You may need to compensate for poor lighting in that case though.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Good points. Remind me why they thought a branch line that loops back on itself was a good idea (aside from the NDP ridings)? Could've run from VCC-Clark to Port Moody instead.

It would have cost too much? The Evergreen Extension cost about as much as Millennium Line Phase I adjusted for inflation. Plus, the branch is useful for Expo Line transfers to SFU.

Most of the cost was the tunnelling through Burnaby Mtn.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Good points. Remind me why they thought a branch line that loops back on itself was a good idea (aside from the NDP ridings)? Could've run from VCC-Clark to Port Moody instead.

The "T-Line" promotes connectivity between town centres - not just to downtown Vancouver - i.e. Coquitlam to/from Surrey.

The Lougheed to Columbia segment was included in the first phase because the switch from LRT to SkyTrain necessitated a connection to the Edmonds yard (a connection at Broadway & Commercial would have been too expensive due to the elevation difference and disruptive to the Expo Line operation).

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by dpogue

The track switches at Lougheed are still a limiting factor because in all cases you'd end up with Expo Line trains needing to share about 3 metres of track with Millennium Line trains in between switches. Plus you'd have to go back to the wrong-railing and switching around Burquitlam, which was proving to be a source of routine problems.

Good point. I did a look at Google Maps and the online the other alternative is to run on a single track from the previous switch which is about a kilometre away. Not sure how much that would limit frequency on that spur of the Expo Line.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The "T-Line" promotes connectivity between town centres - not just to downtown Vancouver - i.e. Coquitlam to/from Surrey.

The Lougheed to Columbia segment was included in the first phase because the switch from LRT to SkyTrain necessitated a connection to the Edmonds yard (a connection at Broadway & Commercial would have been too expensive due to the elevation difference and disruptive to the Expo Line operation).

Fair enough. Though it seems that Waterfront to Coquitlam would've been better for Surrey (and everybody else). Or did Lougheed Mall force a turn west?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Fair enough. Though it seems that Waterfront to Coquitlam would've been better for Surrey (and everybody else). Or did Lougheed Mall force a turn west?

The original wye at Lougheed was planned to fork facing the south,
so through trains would have been Coquitlam to VCC-Clark, or Coquitlam to Columbia (and through to Waterfront?).
As you note, that would have provided just one transfer (@Columbia) from Coquitlam to Surrey (but probably infrequent).
As built, Coquitlam to Surrey requires 2 transfers.

[officedweller]

2009 Study

Note that the gondola can have turns, so a station at Lougheed needn't cut directly across a lot of developable parcels.
These alignments were studied in the 2009 study:


https://univercity.ca/wp-content/themes/...ILITY_STUDY_FINAL_EMAILABLE%20042209.pdf


2011 Study

The 2011 study examined a station at Burquitlam Station, but that wouldn't help passengers coming from the Expo Line.


https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...rnaby-Mountain-Gondola-Business-Case.pdf

2018 Study

The 2018 study also had the kinked option:


https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...0F7F003EA0F36D229E7D05D27C492FFAA6E815F1

[Mac Write]

I like the kinked option as it could be a second station for trial access and access for the area of the turning station.

I would love to see Vancouver plastered with lots of gondola urban transportation by 2030. replace SeaBus (sad) with a Gondola from atop waterfront station or just west freeing up that land and use the Sea Buses for other service (like that gap between North Vancouver and Coquitman (actually a gondola or bridge would be best.

Sorry for going off topic.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

I like the kinked option as it could be a second station for trial access and access for the area of the turning station.

I would love to see Vancouver plastered with lots of gondola urban transportation by 2030. replace SeaBus (sad) with a Gondola from atop waterfront station or just west freeing up that land and use the Sea Buses for other service (like that gap between North Vancouver and Coquitman (actually a gondola or bridge would be best.

Sorry for going off topic.

Extending S.F.U. Gondola to Deep Cove? Will that be meaningful in anyway, or is it plain fantasy?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

replace SeaBus (sad) with a Gondola from atop waterfront station...

That's really not possible. Given that the lowest point in the gondola's catenary would have to be at least as high as the Lion's Gate Bridge in order to allow clear navigation for ships, and given the distance between the shores where the supporting towers would need to be, they'd have to be ludicrously high. You're basically talking about recreating the Peak2Peak gondola at Whistler, but without the benefit of the 5000-ft mountains on each side.

[red-paladin]

New CBC article on the subject:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...rnaby-mountain-gondola-project-1.5031101

"...SFU would be willing to contribute land and money to the project, subject to their board of governors approval."

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

New CBC article on the subject:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...rnaby-mountain-gondola-project-1.5031101

Following the footstep of U.B.C. I see.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Extending S.F.U. Gondola to Deep Cove? Will that be meaningful in anyway, or is it plain fantasy?

I mean, a Gondola down to Hastings St. could also provide connections with the 95B-line and a new WCE station at Shellburn, with a redevelopment of the old refinery.

Gondolas to Dollarton and Ioco make sense, if you have the infrastructure to support it. Trying to get to Ioco by car is a nightmare: but then again, that's largely because of the lack of a David Ave. Extension. How well would a towering gondola really go, especially since it would have to be supported by new TODs in an area that's zoned for semi-rural houses today?

The 2nd Narrows Rail Bridge has a clearance of 44m above the water- and the top of Cates Park. is half that. A 20m tower shouldn't be too horrible. Maybe. It would destroy Cates Park though.

Roche Point Park and the Seymour Golf and Country Club are probably less destructive (but longer) alternatives.
Deep Cove is way too far in though.

Belcarra is definitely tall enough not to require large towers for clearance, though.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The 2nd Narrows Rail Bridge has a clearance of 44m above the water- and the top of Cates Park. is half that. A 20m tower shouldn't be too horrible.

The gondola towers have to be considerably higher than the lowest point of the gondola, including the gondola cars themselves. See: Catenary