Implementation Considerations
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.
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.
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.
Residential |
Industrial or Office |
Other Total Area |
|
|---|---|---|---|
Route 1 |
2 multi-family properties |
9 properties |
15,446 m2* |
Route 2 |
0 properties |
4 properties |
16,104 m2 |
Route 3 |
0 properties |
7 properties |
36,567 m2 |
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.
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
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.
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.
Consultation has concluded
