Urban Gondola/Tram Comparison

Urban Gondola/Tram Comparison
Metro Cable – Medellin, Colombia
Table of Contents
About the Urban Gondola Comparison
1
Urban Gondola Comparison Sheet
2
Roosevelt Island Tram
3
MART
5
Telluride
7
Metro Cable
9
Portland Aerial Tram
11
Baltimore Gondola
13
Camden Waterfront
15
About the Urban Gondola/Tram
Comparison
In response to the mayor’s invitation to Council to visit the gondola in Telluride, Colo. and the
Council’s subsequent consideration of other sites it may want to visit, the Ogden City Council
Staff prepared this Urban Gondola/Tram Comparison as a tool to help provide the Council with
information about other gondolas/trams.
Ogden’s situation is unique in that the urban gondola project may not be directly comparable
to any existing gondolas in the world. There are, however, several gondolas/trams that do provide
insight into what kind of issues the City may see if a gondola were to be constructed.
This comparison includes information from seven gondolas/trams. Six of the gondolas/trams
compared are located within the United States, while the remaining one is located in Medellin,
Colombia.
In determining which gondolas/trams to include in this comparison, it was decided that only
“urban gondolas/trams” would be incorporated. While those gondolas/trams selected may have
similarities to what could be proposed for Ogden, the comparison was done with the
understanding that there is no exact comparison and that there would be differences.
Although there were a number of other gondolas/trams evaluated, they have not been included
because they are not considered to be applicable to the City’s situation. There are several other
gondolas/trams throughout the world that could have been included in this comparison.
Comparison Prepared by Council Staff, November 2006
Presented to Ogden City Council, Nov. 30, 2006
ates)
nt, N
J-PA
terfro
Cam
den
Wa
Mary
land
(e
Baltim
ore,
(estim
stima
tes)
ates)
(estim
Tram
Metro
Portla
Cable
nd A
erial
- Med
e, Co
lorad
o
Tellu
rid
T , Ne
MAR
Ro o o
seve
lt
Islan
w Or
leans
d , NY
C
(Clos
ed)
ellin, C
olomb
ia
Urban Gondola Comparison Sheet
Gondola or Tram
Tram
Gondola
Gondola
Gondola
Tram
Gondola
Tram
Became Operational?
1976
1984
1996
2004
Jan. 2007
Summer 2008
On Hold
# Cars
2
56
32
90
2
90
NA
Capacity (per car)
125
NA
8
10
79
8
8
Intervals:
15 min.
NA
1 min.
12 sec.
5 min.
10 sec.
NA
Length (miles)
0.6
1.5
2.5
1.25
0.63
1
0.62
Speed (max.)
16 mph
22 mph
11 mph
11 mph
22 mph
11 mph
NA
Trip time: (one-way)
4 min
4 min
12 min.
9 minutes
3 min.
5 min.
10 min.
Ridership (possible)
NA
2,000/hr.
480/hr
3,000/hr
2,000/hr
5,600/hr
1,500/hr
1/3 private equity
Privately
2/3 loans
Fares
Fares
Private
Private
<$30 mil
$42 mil
1,200 possible
How construction funded?
NA
Private loan
Bonding and
How operations funded?
State subsidized
Fares
Real estate taxes
Ownership?
State
NA
City
Cost: (Construction)
$20 mil
NA
$16 million
55 % government
Private/
45% Transportation authority Public
NA
After fares, 85%
private, 15% public
City/
Private/
Private
Public
$23 mil
$57 mil
Fare: USD
$3
$1 (in '84)
Free
$0.50
$1.65
$7 (all day pass)
NA
For whom: (Primarily)
(Secondarily)
Locals
Tourists
Tourists
Locals
Tourists
Locals
Locals
Tourists
Locals
Tourists
Tourists
Locals
Tourists
Locals
Area population:
Island -- 9,000
NYC -- 8 million
Island to
Manhattan
560,000 (1980)
3,500
2 million
250,000
635,815
6 million
World's Fair to
Telluride to
Mountain Village
Poverty-stricken areas to
downtown Medellin
University to
$2 bil development
Convention Center to Philadelphia to
other harbor areas
Camden, N.J.
federal grants
Connects:
mostly empty land
* Sources indicated on back sides of subsequent information sheets
2
Roosevelt Island Tram
Purpose: The Roosevelt Island Tram in New York City was built in 1976 to provide
transportation for the 8-9,000 residents who live on Roosevelt Island to travel to and from
the city. The tram also serves tourists who want to get an aerial view of the city. The tram
was built after attempts at getting the subway to reach the island proved unsuccessful.
Benefits: More than 20 million people have traveled on the tram in the last 30 years. It is
a favorite among many tourists because of the view it provides of Manhattan. The tram
also provides an alternative to ground transportation into the city, therefore decreasing
the already crowded ground transportation systems.
Challenges: There are many who believe that the Roosevelt Island Tram became
obsolete after the subway finally connected to the island in 1989. Because the tram is so
popular among tourists and residents of the state-controlled Roosevelt Island, there are no
plans to close down the tram. USA Today reported that the tram is losing $200,000 per
year.
In April 2006 the tram lost electricity and 69 adults and 12 children were stranded
above the East River for 12 hours. The tram was promptly closed down for about five
months so officials could ensure that such an episode was unlikely to happen again. More
than $500,000 in repairs and upgrades were done on the tram. It reopened in September
2006 and has not experienced another incident.
Status: The tram is currently operational, but will undergo a $15 million overhaul
beginning in 2008, with virtually all of its towers, cables, cars, motors and other parts
replaced or rebuilt. This state-funded project will close the tram for about eight months.
How Construction Funded: State funded.
How Operational Costs are Paid: The tram is paid for from money included in the
state-controlled Roosevelt Island Operating Corp. budget. The RIOC’s mandate is to
manage, develop, and operate the 147 acre Roosevelt Island, located in New York City's
East River, in the borough of Manhattan.
Other: There was talk about including advertising on the outside of the tram in an
attempt to make more money.
3
Sources:
The Wire, “RIOC and Miller to Discuss Ads on Tramway”
May 18, 2002 by Dick Lutz
AM New York, “Roosevelt Island Tram Back in Action”
Sept. 1, 2006 by Chuck Bennett
Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.,
http://www.ny.com/cgibin/frame.cgi?url=http://www.rioc.com
USA Today, “Philadelphia, N.J. Tram Still a Dream”
July 21, 2004 by Associated Press
The Sun, “Time to Shut the Tram to Roosevelt Island”
April 21, 2006 by Davidson Goldin
4
MART – New Orleans, Louisiana
Purpose: The Mississippi Aerial Rapid Transit was built in New Orleans for the 1984
World’s Fair. Officials hoped it would continue to be used after the 6-month long fair
finished in November 1984.
Benefits: MART provided locals and tourists a view of the city and the fair from high
above. It easily moved people to and from the East and West bank.
Challenges: Ridership decreased greatly after the world’s fair. It wasn’t making enough
revenue to keep up with operational costs and was closed down by 1985. Even during the
fair, its ridership of 1.7 million was half of what was expected.
Status: In 1993, the U.S. Coast Guard ordered that the gondola be taken down. It was
demolished in 1994. The cars were sold and have been used for many things, such as
greenhouses and eateries.
How Construction was Funded: An $8 million loan was provided by the Banque De
L'Union Europeene of Paris.
How Operational Costs Were Paid: They weren’t. Developers didn’t get the ridership
they expected and were unable to pay operational costs.
Other: Construction began in September 1983. The gondola’s lifespan from the first day
of construction to its closure was only two years.
5
Sources:
Times-Picayune, “Gondola Tower Removal Delayed”
Jan. 22, 1994
Times-Picayune, “Goodbye Gondola: It’s the End of the Line”
Jan. 15, 1994 by Lynne Jensen and Bruce Eggler
Times-Picayune, “Gondola Finally Has Destination: Demolition”
Nov. 6, 1993 by Bruce Eggler
Wikipedia, Mississippi Aerial Rapid Transit
MART Brochure, 1984
6
Telluride – Colorado
Purpose: The gondola was designed to link the more historic town of Telluride to the
newer Mountain Village area. Developers hoped the gondola would eliminate
transportation and air-quality problems the area was experiencing due to growth.
Benefits: In addition to facilitating a decrease in pollution and traffic problems, the
gondola is free to those who want to ride it. A normal 20-minute drive between the towns
takes 12-13 minutes on the gondola. It attracts people to shops, restaurants, hotels, golf
courses and a ski resort.
Challenges: Would be considered more environmentally friendly if it operated on solar
or wind power instead of operating on electricity generated from a coal-fired plant. The
gondola creates additional noise in the area.
Status: More than $6 million in upgrades will be made to the gondola in 2008. Between
2 and 2.5 million people ride the gondola each year.
How Construction Funded: The Telluride Gondola Transit Company was created to be
in charge of organizing the funding of the gondola. The gondola was funded through
bonds.
How Operational Costs are Paid: There is a three percent tax on real estate transactions
earmarked to the Mountain Village Homeowners Association. About $3.5 million of this
money goes to gondola operational costs.
Other: Although there is only about a 3,500 population between the two cities that the
gondola connects, the gondola still gets 2 to 2.5 million riders each year. In order to
reduce visibility, gondola towers were built low and typically do not exceed the tree line.
7
Sources:
The Telluride Watch, “26 Million Rides Later, Gondola Enters Its Tenth Season”
11-17-06 by Martinique Davis
Ogden Standard Examiner, “Connecting Resort Towns: Colorado Gondola has Cut
Down on Traffic, Pollution” 9-17-06 by Scott Schwebke
Telluride.com, www.telluride.com /about_telluride/Gondola.asp
Town of Telluride, http://www.town.telluride.co.us/home/index.asp?page=58
8
Metro Cable – Medellin, Colombia
Purpose: This gondola was built in order to expand the reach of the existing
transportation in the city. It was built to help the poor by providing a cheaper
transportation option. Officials also hoped to stimulate the economy by providing a ripple
effect of economic activity from the gondola line to outlying areas.
Benefits: There are people from large, previously difficult-to-access neighborhoods that
can now go downtown to work, shop, visit, or attend the university. Those who purchase
a pass for the ground transportation can access the gondola for no additional cost. Some
are under the opinion that it has helped decrease crime. Crime rates have decreased
dramatically since it was built. Some residents are trying to beautify their neighborhood
by decorating rooftops for those on the gondola to see.
Challenges: May not be making money on the gondola itself, but that may not be the
purpose. Many residents have said the resources used to build a first-class metro and keep
it running should have instead been used for more pressing needs, such as improving
roads and schools.
Status: Will be adding another line to the system in November 2007.
How Construction Funded: The local government paid for 55 percent of construction
costs, while the transportation authority paid the remaining 45 percent.
How Operations are Funded: Unknown
Other: A “metro culture” was encouraged and taught in schools. Officials believe this
has led to a clean, graffiti-free, well-run gondola.
9
Sources:
Puento Colucci, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2005, “Myths and realities Associated to
Urban Development”
National Catholic, “Mass Transit that Favors the Poor: Medellin’s Metrocable is an
Economic, Social and Political Anomaly” Oct. 7, 2005 by Tom Carney
Poma News, “The Colombian President Inaugurates the Medellin MetroCable”
Winter 2004-2005
El Colombiano, “Quisiera quedarme dando vueltas todo el dia: Uribe”
July 2004 by Rafael Gonzalez Toro
International Airway Journal, “Colombia’s First Mass Transit Aerial Cable System
Opened in Medellin on July 30” Sept. 2004
10
Portland Aerial Tram
Purpose: The Portland Aerial Tram is expected to “provide the rapid and reliable
transportation that is necessary for Oregon Health and Science University's expansion
into the South Waterfront.” The redevelopment of South Waterfront is the integral part of
a $2 billion project that officials hope will reinvigorate the city. According to OHSU, the
tram will “reconnect adjacent neighborhoods to the river and help create a vibrant new
live/work district for Portland.”
Benefits: According to OHSU, the tram is leading to more commerce in the South
Waterfront area. It links the developing South Waterfront and existing neighborhoods
within the Terwilliger Parkway and the Marquam Trail. The OHSU Web site also says
that the tram will “quickly links doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists and students.”
According to OHSU, its expansion is spurring extensive development of the South
Waterfront district, which will lead to around 10,000 new jobs.
Challenges: Some public perception of the tram has changed over the last couple of
years. While the original estimate of the tram’s construction cost was about $15 million,
as the project nears completion, the price tag now is closer to $57 million. Officials have
said this increase in cost is due to the fact that the original estimate did not include design
enhancements that neighborhood and city leaders identified as priorities at a later point.
Skyrocketing steel prices have also been blamed for the higher construction costs.
Status: The final touches are being put on the tram and test runs are taking place.
Officials expect the tram will be open to the public in January 2007.
How Construction Funded: The public is paying 15 percent ($8.5 million) of the $57
million cost of the tram. This money comes from urban-renewal property taxes. OHSU
and its development partners are paying the remainder.
How Operational Costs will be Paid: Riders’ fares will go toward paying operational
costs. The additional operational costs will be paid by OHSU (85 percent) and the city
(15 percent).
Other: The gondolas are expected to make1,500 round trips per day upon opening.
Projection for 20 years from now estimates 5,500 round trips per day.
11
Sources:
City of Portland Web site, www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=ebajf
Oregon Health and Science University Web site,
www.ohsu.edu/ohsuedu/about/transformation/tram/index.cfm
The Oregonian, “City Bets on Condos to Help Pay for District”
April 19, 2006 by Jeff Manning and Ryan Frank
The Oregonian, “Tram Facts”
Aug. 27 by Ryan Frank
12
The Baltimore Gondola
Purpose: The Baltimore gondola is the brainchild of two brothers who think the gondola
will be an attractive money-making venture. The current proposal would serve
convention attendees traveling between the Marriott Convention Hotel and the
Convention Center; residents and visitors traveling between downtown Baltimore and
Fells Point; and those attending events around the Inner Harbor including large sporting
events.
Benefits: The gondola would be a connection between different modes of transit – Light
Rail, MARC Train, Subway and water taxi. It also would run on clean electricity with no
emissions or toxic runoff into the Chesapeake Bay. The developers believe a gondola
would decrease traffic and improve the environment.
Challenges: The Baltimore Lift may take away business from taxis and water taxis in the
area. Because the project would be completely funded by private sources, the developers
may have a difficult time gathering the funds needed to begin construction. The
developers would need to receive permission from the city in order to build towers on
city land.
Status: While construction on the Baltimore Gondola has not yet begun, this may change
very soon. According to a Nov. 6, 2006 Baltimore Daily Record article, the brothers who
are proposing this gondola hope to open it by Summer 2008. Construction is set to take
about 14 months.
How Construction Funded: Construction, which is expected to cost more than $30
million, will be funded by 1/3 the developers’ private equity and 2/3 loans.
How Operational Costs will be Paid: The developers will use the loan money to pay
initial operational costs. After that, annual revenue is supposed to pay back debts and
fund operating costs.
Other: According to a Baltimore Daily Record news article, the developers have been
working with Leitner-Poma of America., Inc to do studies determining how a gondola
would fit in downtown Baltimore. In the article, the company’s representative said his
“company is studying the potential for gondola systems in other cities, including Atlanta,
Atlantic City, Ogden, Utah and Syracuse, N.Y.”
.
13
Sources:
Baltimore Daily Record, “Will Downtown Baltimore Gondola Plan Fly”
Nov. 6, 2006 by Jen DeGregorio
E-mail correspondence with journalist Jen DeGregorio
Baltimore Daily Record, “Team to Study Gondola Rides For Baltimore’s Inner
Harbor” Aug. 10, 2005 by Jen DeGregorio
Baltimore Gondola Proposal Web Site – www.baltimorelift.com
Baltimore City Paper, “Pie in the Sky”
March 10, 2004 by Alice Ockleshaw
14
Camden Waterfront, NJ-PA
Purpose: Developers believe an aerial tram would serve as a great tourist attraction for
those who would cross the Delaware River from Philadelphia, Penn. to Camden, N.J.
They believe a tram would give both cities an economic boost by advancing the “two
cities, one waterfront” concept. One of the largest reasons for the idea of building a tram
was because of what was perceived to be a huge jump in the amount of waterfront
development.
Benefits: An aerial tram would provide a tourist attraction. It would also allow those
who are visiting one city to travel easily to the waterfront of the city on the opposite side
of the river. Developers also believe commuters would use the tram by the thousands.
Challenges: The biggest challenge right now is the fact that although two towers for the
tram have already been constructed, there is a moratorium on work being done on the
riverfront due to poor planning. Developers hoped a $329 million entertainment complex
on the Pennsylvania side of the tram would prove to be an anchor, but the complex never
came to fruition. A train and a ferry also are already in operation and connect the two
cities.
Status: At least $13 million was already spent on the tram’s infrastructure. In November
2006 new planning began in an effort to discuss how to develop the riverfront area,
including what to do with the tram.
How Construction Funded: The Delaware River Port Authority is funding the project.
Their money comes from ownership of Benjamin Franklin, Walt Whitman, Commodore
Barry, and Betsy Ross bridges. All four bridges are part of the E-Z Pass Electronic Toll
Collection network.
How Operational Costs will be Paid: Developers expect fares to cover operating costs.
A study done for the Delaware River Port Authority estimates the tram will get 500,000
riders a year and generate a profit of about $400,000 in its first year.
15
Sources:
USA Today, “Philadelphia, N.J. Tram Still a Dream”
July 21, 2004 by Associated Press
Camden Waterfront Master Plan
Skyline Online “Trams, Scams and Philadelphia’s Aversion to Riverfront Planning”
April 20, 2006 by Inga Saffron
Camden Waterfront Web site, www.camdenwaterfront.com
Camden City press release, “Camden Waterfront Attractions Report Record-Breaking
Attendance Increase” Aug. 8, 2002
Camden City press release, “Mayor Faison Opens One of Many Projects of Master Plan”
April 5, 2002
Philadelphia Business Journal, “Penn’s Landing Plans Concerts”
May 5, 2006 by Peter Van Allen
16