Winnipeg to get aerial tramway link to U of M?

[Only The Lonely..]

U of M gondola no pie-in-the-sky plan
Study says cable-car to St. Vital much cheaper than a new bridge
Mon Jan 7 2008

By Bartley Kives | Winnipeg Free Press



Winnipeg Transit studied four possible cable-car routes between 1.5 kilometres and 2.25 kilometres in length.
A cable-car feasibility study by Winnipeg Transit has found St. Norbert Coun. Justin Swandel does not have his head in the clouds.

Since May, Swandel has been promoting the possibility of connecting St. Vital and the University of Manitoba with an aerial tramway to reduce traffic on Bishop Grandin Boulevard.

Some fellow councillors scoffed, but a study released Friday suggests an aerial link could be built for as little as $3 million, which would be a fraction of the cost of erecting a new pedestrian footbridge over the Red River.

"I thought it would actually come in a lot higher. I think it's a pretty attractive number for getting across the river, when you consider it would cost at least $15 million to build a pedestrian-bicycle bridge," Swandel said.

Inspired by a Portland, Oregon gondola system that connects a hospital to a busy public transit node, Swandel originally proposed an aerial tramway to alleviate cross-river congestion caused by traffic bound for both the University of Manitoba and St. Vital Centre.

As a result, Winnipeg Transit studied four possible cable-car routes: Two short north-south connections between the university's main campus and the nearest opposite riverbanks; a 1.5-kilometre east-west connection between the university's Fletcher-Argue Building and St. Mary's Road; and a more ambitious, 2.25-kilometre link between the U of M's Robson Hall and the southwest corner of St. Vital Centre's parking lot.

According to the study, the short links could be built for as little as $3 million, while the east-west route would cost $4 million. Building a link all the way to St. Vital Centre would cost $8.2 million, but would likely face opposition from St. Vital homeowners.

"The main advantage of this (latter) alignment is that St. Vital Centre is an established major transit node, which would greatly increase the potential number of users of this service," Winnipeg Transit notes in its report.

"However, the alignment would pass directly over residential neighbourhoods, which may lead to concerns from area residents regarding privacy and noise."

The other three proposed routes do not cross over residential homes.

Winnipeg Transit estimated the demand for the cable crossing would be in the area of 500 return trips per day, based on the number of U of M students who live in St. Vital.

Swandel believes the demand would be even higher, thanks to Fort Garry residents seeking easy access to St. Vital Centre. "I think that's what's missing from this report," he said.

The cable-car report will be presented to city council's public works committee on Tuesday. After that, Swandel must sell the plan to skeptical fellow councillors and then begin the long process of trying to add the gondola system to a list of future capital projects.

bartley.kives@freepress.mb.ca

[Only The Lonely..]

Portland's system..



And FAQ from the Tram's webpage..
http://www.portlandtram.org/faq.htm

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

How high, how far, how fast?
The Tram cabins travel 3,300 linear feet between the South Waterfront terminal adjacent to the OHSU Center for Health & Healing, and the upper terminal at the Kohler Pavilion on OHSU's main campus. Traveling at 22 miles per hour, the Tram cabins rise 500 feet for the three-minute trip over I-5, the Lair Hill neighborhood and the Southwest Terwilliger Parkway.


Why a Tram?
OHSU needs to expand beyond its Marquam Hill campus to meet increased patient, education and research needs. The underused properties of South Waterfront provided a location that would keep OHSU's growth in Portland. After years of discussion and study of options to connect the upper campus with the new area, the Portland City Council adopted the Marquam Hill Plan that included the Tram as the superior system over shuttles and other alternatives to link the two areas.


Who owns the Tram?
The Portland Aerial Tram is part of Portland's public transportation system, and is owned by the city. OHSU provided $40 million of the $57 million construction cost of the Tram. The city's share of construction costs ($8.5 million) will be collected over time from the rising property values in South Waterfront caused by its redevelopment. OHSU oversees operation of the Tram, while the city is responsible for the maintenance of the upper and lower stations and tower, and provides regulatory oversight.


Who designed the Tram and cabins?
The Tram was designed by Angelil/Graham/Pfenniger/Scholl, based in Zurich, Switzerland, and Los Angeles. The custom-designed cabins were made by Gangloff Cabins of Bern, Switzerland.


How safe is the Tram?
The Tram is exceptionally safe. Concerns about the seismic history of our region have been addressed in the Tram's design. It meets the new, more rigorous Swiss standards for aerial tramways and, thus, exceeds U.S. seismic standards. The Tram is equipped with redundant (backup) drivers and generators in the event of power outages, and the entire system is under constant computer monitoring.


Will weather affect the Tram?
There will be times when high winds or ice may affect Tram operations. However, this type of Tram has proved itself very capable and trustworthy in the extreme winter conditions of the Swiss Alps. Tram staff closely monitor weather conditions and will delay operations if needed.


Will the Tram cabins ever get delayed in mid-route?
Tram operators know from experience that Tram cabins will occasionally be stopped in mid-trip for a few seconds and - in rare instances - for several minutes while Tram operators make routine adjustments. If there is a delay, your Tram operator will explain the reason and advise on how long the delay will last.

[Only The Lonely..]

[Biff]

I like the thinking outside of the box, but...

I think that although a pedestrial bridge is more expensive there will be very little upkeep, no real ongoing operational costs and more reliability in the bridge.

I would rather have a bridge.

[drew]

The City of Winnipeg: "We are open for new ideas! (as long as its not rapid transit)"

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by Biff

I like the thinking outside of the box, but...

I think that although a pedestrial bridge is more expensive there will be very little upkeep, no real ongoing operational costs and more reliability in the bridge.

I would rather have a bridge.

I agree, its an innovative solution. I don't see anything wrong with this idea.

In my ideal Winnipeg, we would have a blended transit system of buses, LRT, and some form of alternative transit such as this proposal.

[LilZebra]

Who owns the Tram?
The Portland Aerial Tram is part of Portland's public transportation system, and is owned by the city. OHSU provided $40 million of the $57 million construction cost of the Tram. The city's share of construction costs ($8.5 million) will be collected over time from the rising property values in South Waterfront caused by its redevelopment. OHSU oversees operation of the Tram, while the city is responsible for the maintenance of the upper and lower stations and tower, and provides regulatory oversight.

For about that much $$, you could have one of these... and carry many, many more people at a time...


A Strasbourg Tram

SOURCE: TrainNet.org. Photo by Martin Schrader

[LilZebra]

double post.

[Ruckus]

Although I don't know Winnipeg well enough to comment on the functionality of it, it seems like a viable option.

Unconventional and easily a tourist attraction for some visitors (boost to Winnipeg's identity)

[viperred88]

Thanks Only the lonely for the Porland article

here is more on the history

Portland Aerial Tram History
In 1999, OHSU developed a 20-year Master Facilities Plan to address OHSU's future growth. The plan recognized that OHSU's ability to expand on Marquam Hill was severely limited due to site and road constraints. OHSU considered other expansion scenarios, but together with the city identified South Waterfront as the best expansion site, assuming a rapid and reliable transit connection between the campus and the waterfront could be established.



A study was commissioned to look at the many connection alternatives, and it concluded that a tram was the best solution. This then led to Portland's first international design competition. From December 2002 to March 2003, firms from around the world competed for the privilege of designing the Portland Aerial Tram.



After a series of public lectures and design discussions, the competition came to a close on March 26, 2003, when a six-member jury unanimously selected Angel/Graham/Pfenninger/Scholl Architecture, based in Zurich, Switzerland and Los Angeles to design the Tram.



The custom-designed cabins were manufactured by Gangloff Cabins of Bern, Switzerland, and the Doppelmayr/Garaventa Group of Switzerland and its North American subsidiary, Doppelmayr CTEC-designed, engineered and built the operating system. Doppelmayr CTEC also will operate the Tram under a contract with OHSU, which has responsibility for the Tram's daily operations. Doppelmayr and its subsidiaries have a 120-year history in the aerial ropeway industry. They have built and continue to service more than 13,300 cable transportation systems in 70 different countries, and they build about 170 new ones every year.



Before the Tram was even running, it became a catalyst for investment dollars in South Waterfront, with even greater investment expected in the future. This area has proved to be a significant and vital addition to the development and growth of Portland's future.



Some controversy arose as the Tram's costs grew beyond the original estimates as a result of design improvements, growing steel costs and other factors. However, efforts were successful in ensuring that the increased costs did not tap into the City's General Funds. The city's contribution accounts for 15 percent, and that money comes from property tax revenues that legally must be spent on South Waterfront infrastructure, such as the Tram. OHSU, its development partners and other property owners in South Waterfront will pay the remainder of the costs.



On August 19, 2006, the 75-foot, 75,000 pound steel truss sky bridge linking the upper tram terminal to the Kohler Pavilion was lifted into place. Soon after, the 195-foot intermediate tower on Macadam Avenue was finished, and the saddles that carry the ropeway were installed on top. In December, 2006 to Portland Aerial Tram began its Operational Phase and opened for OHSU employees and students. On January 27, the Tram opens to the public.



For more history of the tram, visit the City of Portland Office of Transportation website.

[Boreal]

That tram link, would fall directly into my neck of the woods. It would be extremely welcome. In my humble opinion, a bridge would disrupt what is, from the University of Manitoba's North East bank, one of the best river views in the city. Congestion on St. Mary's/River Rd./Bishop Grandin Blvd./ University Crescent is obscene in the morning. This would circumvent a lot of problems.

There is also - yes - plenty of land available for a "park and lift".

I am a huge cheerleader for the go-ahead of this project in almost any capacity. Its new, exciting, and most importantly is a fiscally responsible solution to a need.

[viperred88]

I thought gondala would be cheaper than a sky train and such.

"According to the study, the short links could be built for as little as $3 million, while the east-west route would cost $4 million. Building a link all the way to St. Vital Centre would cost $8.2 million, ...."

anyway I am sure the operating cost would be alot cheaper than our buses and the servicing as well. It would perhaps be the most logical cost efficient rapid transit that we can muster for downtown if it were so.

For it to be downtown the trusses won't have to be high like the one proposed for st vital. I am sure we can have them just a few above traffic for an actual rapid transit vehicle. And yes we could seperate ones for the tourist that go almost as high as the Richardson building.

Just imagine those steel truss sky bridges would totally complement our skyline. Especially if they were lighten up. How about having a restaurant and observation tower on top there (with a stairway and elevator leading to the top like the CN tower.

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

For about that much $$, you could have one of these... and carry many, many more people at a time...


A Strasbourg Tram

SOURCE: TrainNet.org. Photo by Martin Schrader

[The Jabroni]

I think it's a great idea. Although that alignment 4 in that diagram might be a cause of concern, as it said in the article with going over residential areas.

Other than that, I like the idea. Definitely not the type of tramway you'd see in Busch Gardens or Walt Disney World.

[Only The Lonely..]

Who owns the Tram?
The Portland Aerial Tram is part of Portland's public transportation system, and is owned by the city. OHSU provided $40 million of the $57 million construction cost of the Tram.

I have a fear that transit is using the same 1987 costing book that the city used for the CPT Extension. If such a line could be built for under 10 million its a steal.

Anything around the true cost of the Portland system and we should be building a proper LRT out to the University.

Just my two cents.

[Biff]

I also find it hard to believe you could build a tram for $3 to $4 million.

[Only The Lonely..]

Transit in the sky

Tue Jan 8 2008 | Winnipeg Free Press - Editorial


THE idea of building an aerial cable-car system to link the University of Manitoba with St. Vital on the opposite side of the Red River is an exciting one that is worth further consideration.

Currently, the quickest way for residents of southeast Winnipeg to travel to the Fort Garry campus is along Bishop Grandin Boulevard or the Perimeter Highway. Both routes require students and others to make long circuitous detours by car or bus (or bicycle for those with the stamina and courage to make the trip on busy streets).

Obviously, a transit solution that cuts travelling time is desirable for a number of reasons. It would reduce noxious emissions, save time, reduce congestion and make it easier for at least some residents to either walk or bicycle. It might even be possible to reduce the number of Transit buses serving the area if a tramway encouraged more walking and cycling. Some 44 per cent of university students living in St. Vital use their cars, while another 18 per cent share a ride. The river would also be less of a barrier dividing the trading and business areas of south Winnipeg.

A feasibility study conducted by Winnipeg Transit says an aerial tram could bridge the river for as little as $3 million, compared to $15 million to construct a span for pedestrians and cyclists. A link to St. Vital Shopping Centre could cost $8.2 million, but the benefits and possible drawbacks would be greater. More people on both sides of the river would benefit from the connection with a major retail centre, but residents between the two points might resent the overhead commotion.

An aerial gondola system that opened in January 2007 in Portland, Oregon, has quickly proven to be extremely popular with residents and tourists. It links the city's South Waterfront District with the Oregon Health and Science University Campus, which paid most of the $57 million price tag. (The cost was significantly higher because of land-expropriation costs and disputes with homeowners, some of whom feared the tram would disrupt their lives.)

Winnipeg Transit would be the natural operator of a gondola system, but the University of Manitoba might want to consider providing funding, if the concept is eventually adopted. An aerial tram could help reduce the university's parking problems, while boosting its accessibility and overall image in the community.

The city should conduct more studies to determine the costs and benefits of a transit system in the sky. There appears to be room, for example, for a park and ride program on the St. Vital side of the river, but residents will need to be consulted on that and a variety of other issues.

Portland has earned a reputation as a pioneering and innovative city because of the way it has embraced modern urban planning, including the use of light rail transit and electric street cars. Winnipeg has no such reputation, but it's never too late to start trying.

[harls]

# 3 looks like the most cost-effective, but #1 would have the benefit of soaring over experimental crops and herbicides.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by harls

# 3 looks like the most cost-effective, but #1 would have the benefit of soaring over experimental crops and herbicides.

lol yea and they could put a stop on it at mide way across the feilds for the students lol

[wags_in_the_peg]

U of M gondola plan shelved?
Updated at 2:14 PM

St. Norbert Coun. Justin Swandel's dream of building a cable-car connection between the University of Manitoba and St. Vital has gotten tangled up at City Hall.

Today a pair of deadlocked votes at city council's public works committee left the aerial tramway plan in limbo, as councillors failed to agree on whether Winnipeg Transit should study the idea in greater detail or abandon it altogether.

Late last week, a transit study concluded it could cost as little as $3 million to build a gondola connection over the Red River between the U of M and St. Vital, not including annual operating costs. A pedestrian bridge would likely cost at least $12 million.

Winnipeg Transit did not push the plan, recommending it be "received as information," which is a City Hall euphemism for shelving a report. But Swandel appeared before the public works committee today and pleaded for genuine action.

The St. Norbert councillor convinced committee chair Bill Clement and veteran Mynarski Coun. Harry Lazarenko to ask Winnipeg Transit to conduct a more detailed study.

But Elmwood Coun. Lillian Thomas trashed the idea, insisting the city should not consider a cable-car connection while a bus rapid transit corridor along Pembina Highway remains unbuilt.

Then North Kildonan Coun. Jeff Browaty deemed the transit plan too timid, resulting in a deadlocked vote.

The result means nothing will happen with the cable-car proposal unless Swandel makes another motion at city council.

This afternoon he was considering his options

[ILYR]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

U of M gondola no pie-in-the-sky plan
Study says cable-car to St. Vital much cheaper than a new bridge

Only the original costs will likely be cheaper. Long term costs will likely be higher. Also there is no way a gondola will operate 24 hours, more likely very limited hours.

Speaking of trams (not gondolas or cable cars, but what was posted above by jimj_wpg), the tramway in Geneva is amazing. We should have a tram system in Winnipeg that runs down major roads (e.g. Pembina, Main, Regent, Portage). Take out the median and use that room for the tram.