Burnaby Mountain Gondola: Phase 2 Public Engagement

Overview

We have completed the preliminary route evaluation of the three potential routes connecting the SkyTrain to Burnaby Mountain. We evaluated each route on three main factors: project benefits, costs, and implementation considerations.

Project benefits are the main reasons for considering the proposed gondola. They would improve the current transportation experience.

Costs include the cost to build and operate the gondola.

Implementation considerations include the requirements that are needed to deliver the Burnaby Mountain Gondola. These are the trade-offs that would need to happen to achieve the benefits of the gondola. Impacts from the trade-offs would be mitigated where possible.

Preliminary Route Evaluation Report (PDF)

Appendix 1 - Phase One Stakeholder and Public Engagement Summary Report (PDF)

Appendix 2 - Neighbourhood Considerations Analyses (PDF)

Appendix 3 - Environmental Considerations Analyses (PDF)

Appendix 4 - Safety Considerations (PDF)

Proposed Burnaby Mountain Gondola Routes

Summary of route evaluation:

Benefits

Financial Considerations

Implementation Considerations

Transportation User Experience

Transportation user experience includes the travel time savings for transit users and drivers, and access to the top terminals from SFU buildings. To understand the transportation user benefits, TransLink’s team conducted a forecasting analysis.

Transit travel time savings

Route 1: 13% faster travel time than bus (48 min vs. 55 min)

Route 2: 9% faster travel time than bus (50 min vs. 55 min)

Route 3: same travel time as bus (55 min)

Reduction in daily road congestion (hours/day)

Route 1: -700 hours of congestion

Route 2: -660 hours of congestion

Route 3: -490 hours of congestion

Classrooms and other buildings within a 5-minute walk of the upper terminal

Routes 1 and 2: 80% of classrooms buildings and 30% of other buildings

Route 3: 52% of classrooms buildings and 45% of other buildings

Map of top terminal walking maps (PDF)

Findings: Route 1 has the most transit and auto travel time savings and greatest number of SFU buildings within a 5-minute walk of the upper terminal.

Sustainable Transportation

Sustainable transportation includes the long-range benefits of the gondola, including how many people would use the gondola annually (measured in boardings) and the reduction in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by mode switch (people switching from driving to taking the gondola).

Weekday Transit Boardings

Transit boardings are driven mainly by the travel time on the route and the frequency of the service. The shorter the travel time and the more frequent the service the more boardings a route will have. Route 1 has an estimated travel time of 6 minutes, Route 2 is estimated at 10 minutes, and Route 3 is estimated at 11 minutes. In peak periods gondola cabins will be arriving about every minute.

Reduction in GHG emissions from mode switch

Route 1: 1,400 tonne reduction in GHG emissions

Route 2: 1,300 tonne reduction in GHG emissions

Route 3: 800 tonne reduction in GHG emissions

Current bus service (that the gondola would replace) emits 3,700 tonnes of GHG emissions annually. While TransLink has adopted the Low Carbon Fleet Strategy to electrify its fleet, it is only partially funded. The gondola project could accelerate achieving emissions targets. It would also avoid the costs of building the necessary electric charging infrastructure and purchase of battery buses to serve the area. Instead, those resources would be available to electrify services elsewhere on the network.

Findings: Route 1 would generate the most boardings and offset the most carbon emissions of the three proposed route options.

The gondola capital cost includes gondola infrastructure (cabins, terminals, towers, angle stations) and property costs (aerial rights and land required for infrastructure). The operating and maintenance costs include the cost to operate (labour, energy) and maintain the system (routine maintenance and rehabilitation).

Capital costs for gondola infrastructure and property acquisition

Route 1: $210 million

Route 2: 13% more than Route 1

Route 3: 10% more than Route 1

As a comparison, we have routine capital costs associated with bus operation as we replace them every 15 years. The capital costs associated with the gondola system are for 30 years. In a 30-year period, we anticipate we could spend upwards of $77.5 million on bus replacements.

Operating and maintenance costs

Route 1: $5.6 million (30% less than bus service)

Route 2: $7.2 million (8% less than bus service)

Route 3: $7.2 million (8% less than bus service)

As a comparison, we spend $7.8 million per year on operating and maintaining bus.

Findings: Route 1 has the lowest capital, operating, and maintenance costs.

Implementation considerations include the requirements needed to deliver the Burnaby Mountain Gondola. These are the trade-offs that are needed to achieve the benefits of the gondola. Impacts from the trade-offs would be mitigated where possible.

Neighbourhood considerations

Through public feedback, particularly that from local residents, we heard that noise, privacy, visual presence, property impacts, and safety of the system were key considerations. We evaluated the three gondola routes against these considerations to understand the amount of change that might occur.

Noise

Gondola systems produce noise at terminals, towers, and angle stations. There are towers and an angle station proposed near the communities of Forest Grove, Rathburn, and Meadowood. We measured existing background noise levels and used modelling to assess the potential change in noise levels (decibels) attributed to the gondola. (As a comparison, SkyTrain noise can range from 65-90 decibels.)

Findings: No perceptible increase in neighbourhood noise (i.e., less than 1 decibel increase). Gondola is quieter than existing background noise levels.

Noise Memo (PDF)

Privacy

Privacy is a measure of the separation between gondola users and residences and industrial/office buildings. We have done a privacy analysis to better understand the separation between gondola users and residences and industrial/office buildings. To measure privacy, we applied a 30.5 metres (100 foot) line of sight separation from residential and industrial buildings to the gondola. This distance is used by the City of Burnaby to plan the separation of new high-rise buildings.

Findings:

Route 1: lowest privacy impact, followed by Route 3.

Route 2: greatest privacy impact with 12 residential units at UniverCity, 1 future mixed-use residential area at SFU, and 3 industrial/office properties.

Route 3: slightly higher privacy impacts than Route 1 as it impacts a larger industrial area.

Potential mitigation: In a future design phase TransLink would review the use of tinted window features in gondola cabins to support privacy.

Privacy Impact Analysis (PDF)

Neighbourhood Privacy - Route 1 - Forest Grove Drive - Gaglardi Way (PDF)

Neighbourhood Privacy - Route1 - Forest Grove Elementary - Mountainside (PDF)

Neighbourhood Privacy - Route 1 - Simon Fraser Village - Ran Beamish Place (PDF)

Neighbourhood Privacy - Route 2 (PDF)

Neighbourhood Privacy - Route 3 (PDF)

Visual presence

When the gondola system is operating, gondola cabins will be visible from the ground. To measure visual presence, we calculated the number of units within 100 metres of the gondola. (Due to the variability of the local topography and trees the visibility of the gondola may be reduced.)

Route 1: 250 units in 4 multi-family properties; no single-family properties

Route 2: 290 units in 7 multi-family properties; 7 single-family properties

Route 3: No multi-family properties; 13 single-family properties

Findings: Route 3 had the lowest visual presence impact, followed by route 1.

Potential mitigation: In a future design phase, TransLink would explore the minimization of the visual presence of the gondola by locating gondola cabins above the tree canopy and using local topography.

Neighbourhood Visual Presence Analysis (PDF)

Property impacts

Within 20 metres of the gondola right-of-way there may be aerial or infrastructure (ground) property impacts. We reported property requirements for residential, office and industrial, and other properties, including the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area, parks, Burnaby Mountain Golf Course, and SFU lands.

Potential mitigation: If the gondola is approved and funded in the future, TransLink would provide fair compensation to affected property owners.

Findings: Route 1 had the lowest overall property impacts, but it does impact two residential properties.

Safety of the system

TransLink is working to assess potential risks for communities along the routes to ensure a safe and secure system. Considerations include potential vandalism, ice bombs, operation in high winds, seismic resilience (earthquakes), and objects thrown out of the cabins.

• Vandalism: The system would come with strong security measures in place to monitor the integrity of the gondola, similar to what is in place for SkyTrain, and the towers would be designed to prevent unauthorized access. Read the Vandalism Memo for more details.

• Ice formation: It would be quite unlikely for the gondola cables to ice-up, given the cabins move continuously. If ice was to form while the lift is operating, it would come off at the towers as the cabins pass, but in very small particles, similar to snow. If any ice formed overnight, onsite maintenance staff would take steps to mitigate the ice formation (e.g. operating the lift at slow speed with reduced cabins overnight).

• Operation in high winds: Gondolas can safely operate in winds of up to 100 km/hr. In high winds, the operating speed slows.

• Earthquake resilient design: The seismic resilience of infrastructure is related to its design and construction and the soil stability (geotechnical conditions). The gondola system would be designed and built to be seismically resilient and a detailed geotechnical evaluation would occur at a future design phase (if the gondola is approved and funded).

• Objects thrown out of cabins: Cabin windows would not open, so passengers could not throw things out the window.

Environment

We reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the gondola including land, water, and critical habitat impacts.

Three land categories were assessed:

Impacts to Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area and parkland

The Burnaby Mountain Park and Conservation system consists of the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area, Naheeno Park, Simon Fraser University Lands, and the Forest Grove Conservation area. The City of Burnaby has ownership of most of this area and is continuing to acquire the remaining public lands. The size of the total impacted land area is as follows:

Route 1: 19,779 m²

Route 2: 36,768 m²

Route 3: 57,455 m² (Note: substantial overlap with Burnaby Mountain Golf Course)

Findings: Route 1 has the least impact on the BMCA and parkland.

Impacts to Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area and Parkland Map (PDF)

Land disturbance area

Land disturbance has been used to measure accidental archaeological discovery and intrusion into Indigenous cultural use areas. An Archaeological Overview Assessment, which includes Preliminary Field Reconnaissance, is ongoing.

The area of anticipated land disturbance include:

Route 1

• Structures: 725 m²

• Access road: 0 m

Route 2

• Structures: 2,474 m²

• Access road: 7,415 m²

Route 3

• Structures: 2,733 m²

• Access road: 990 m²

Findings: Route 1 resulted in the lowest land disturbance area.

Land Disturbance Map (PDF)

Tree removal

As the gondola crosses the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area (BMCA) and has towers or angle stations located within it, tree clearing will be required. Permanent tree removal is required for gondola towers and angle stations. In addition, angle stations also require the area immediately before and after the station to be kept free from trees to allow the gondola to descend and ascend from the station. We measured the approximate numbers of trees required for clearing:

Route 1: 220 trees

Route 2: 1,100 trees

Route 3: 1,330 trees

Tree Loss Map (PDF)

Findings: Route 1 has the lowest impacts to trees.

Waterways and riparian areas

Burnaby Mountain has a dense network of waterways and riparian areas.

Waterways (also watercourses) are commonly referred to as streams, or a source of water supply, whether they usually contain water or not. They can be a pond, lake, river, creek, brook, ditch, and a sprint or wetland that is integral to a stream and provides fish habitat.

Riparian areas include the area next to a stream that may be subject to temporary, frequent or seasonal flooding, and supports plant species that are typical of such an area.

There are three principle stream systems that originate from the top of Burnaby Mountain: Eagle Creek, Silver Creek, and Stoney Creek. Within these systems there are provincially classified Class A and Class B waterways and riparian areas. Class A waterways are fish-bearing and Class B are non-fish-bearing but provide food and nutrients. Class A and Class B waterways and riparian areas overlap, so the total impacted area includes:

Route 1:

• 0 m² of Class A waterways and riparian areas impacted
• 8 m² of Class B waterways and riparian areas impacted

Route 2:

• 7,464 m² of Class A waterways and riparian areas impacted
• 5,681 m² of Class B waterways and riparian areas impacted

Route 3:

• 0 m² of Class A waterways and riparian areas impacted
• 6,490 m² of Class B waterways and riparian areas impacted

Findings: Route 1 had the least impact to waterways and riparian areas compared to Route 2 and Route 3.

Waterways and Riparian Areas Map (PDF)

Critical habitat

We have identified that there is potential for Western Painted Turtle Pacific Coast (Western Painted Turtle) critical habitat along the gondola routes. A field-based survey would be required to confirm usage of the identified critical habitat. The Western Painted Turtle is classified as “Endangered” by the federal Species at Risk Act and “Red” by the provincial Wildlife Act.

Route 1: No impact to Western Painted Turtle critical habitat

Route 2: 9,344 m²

Route 3: 580 m²

Findings: Route 1 does not impact identified Western Painted Turtle critical habitat, whereas both Route 2 and 3 have some impact.

Critical Habitat Map (PDF)

Safety

The placement of gondola infrastructure is also constrained by geotechnical conditions, the presence of significant utilities, and risks from external safety hazards.

Geotechnical site stability for towers and terminals

We have done a preliminary assessment of the potential for geohazards (landslide, faults, and erosion), slope stability, and foundation conditions.

Route 1: Crosses through landscapes that have no historical evidence of landslide features. There is no evidence of rock avalanche zones near the proposed route.

Route 2: There is potential for landslide between University Drive East and Gaglardi Way, as there are steep slopes present in this area. There is no evidence of rock avalanche zones near the alignment.

Route 3: Crosses through landscapes that have no historical evidence of landslide features. There is no evidence of rock avalanche zones near the proposed route.

Findings: Route 1 has the best geotechnical conditions.

Significance of utilities conflicts

This measure relates to the presence of utilities and the level of potential conflict between the utilities and the gondola.

Route 1 would cross BC Hydro low voltage power lines at two points along its route. In both instances, the gondola would be separated from the power lines by at least 20 m. Route 1 would cross a Fortis pipeline, but no infrastructure intrusion is proposed in the pipeline right-of-way.

Route 2 would cross over low voltage power lines immediately before reaching the angle station. These low voltage power lines may need to be moved underground to support the gondola design. Immediately after the angle station, the gondola would cross under high voltage power lines, with an 8 m clearance between the gondola cable and power lines. TransLink’s ropeway designer indicated that it is unclear whether this is sufficient. However, it may be possible to lift the high voltage power lines to allow the gondola to pass safely underneath. This would increase the design complexity, cost, construction timeline, and may require tree clearing/land disturbance. Further study at a future stage would be required to understand the constraints and potential mitigations.

Route 3 would require moving low voltage power lines underground to accommodate the angle station. In addition, construction has started on the Burnaby Mountain Tunnel connecting Westridge Marine Terminal Port with the Burnaby Trans Mountain’s Burnaby Mountain storage terminal. TransLink’s ropeway designer indicated that it is unclear whether the angle station may need to be moved to avoid the Burnaby Mountain Tunnel as the right-of-way may overlap with the angle station. Further study at a future stage would be required to understand whether the angle station could be moved. Engagement with Trans Mountain would be required.

Findings: Route 1 does not have any significant utilities conflicts, whereas both Route 2 and 3 have conflicts that would require additional study.

Risks from external safety hazards

This measure relates to the potential risk to the gondola system from external safety hazards. These may include a hazardous event at the Burnaby Mountain storage terminal (e.g. a fire) or the potential for transfer of electrical current to the gondola system from high voltage power lines.

Should the Burnaby Mountain Gondola advance for further consideration we would engage with Trans Mountain and/or BC Hydro to better understand mitigations and safety protocols.

Route 1 Route 1 would continue to operate within an acceptable risk level

Route 2 the high voltage power lines that Route 2 needs to pass under present a risk to the gondola system if they are not modified.

Route 3 is located the closest to the Burnaby Terminal. Trans Mountain has informed TransLink that they have concerns with the safety and security of Route 3.

Findings: Route 1 has the lowest risk from external safety hazards.

Letter from Trans Mountain (PDF)

Vandalism

The system would come with strong security measures in place to monitor the integrity of the gondola, similar to what is in place for SkyTrain, and the towers would be designed to prevent unauthorized access. Read the Vandalism Memo for more details.