aerialropeways[1]

8/13/2019 Aerialropeways[1]

1/25

Aerial Ropeways,Funicular Railways,

and Other Hill-Climbing Modes

May 25, 2004

Todays Topics

Description and uses

Capacity

Example applications

Case study: OHSU Aerial Tram


2/25

Specialized Modes

Overcome steep grades that more traditionalmodes cant handle

Cross rivers, canyons where passenger demanddoesnt warrant a bridge

Provide access over/into environmentally sensitiveareas

Provide a mechanical assist to a walking trip

Aerial Ropeways

Generic term for a family of modes in which thepassenger carrier is suspended from a wire rope(cable)

Aerial tramways

Aerial lifts (gondolas, funitels, ski lifts)

Detachable-grip

Fixed-grip


3/25

Carraige

DetachableGrip

Hanger

Cabin

Gondola

Aerial Tramways

Typically, two larger (20-180 person) cabinsshuttle back and forth between two stations

Double-decked cabins at upper limit (Switzerland)

Revolving cabins (Palm Springs, Table Mountain)

Can have single cabin (Niagara Falls, Royal Gorge)

Intermediate station possible in theory if exactly

halfway

So cabins dont have to stop twice en route


4/25

Aerial Tramway Uses

Urban transport (1)

Roosevelt Island, NYC

Scenic views (12)

Mountain tops

Gorge crossings

Ski area transport (11)

1,100 14,600 ft long

Up to 5,800 ft climb

All data 2002, US & Canada

Gondolas

Multiple small carriers (4-15 persons) circulatealong a line

Gondola technically refers to the carrier, butcommonly used to refer to the entire lift

Gondola can be designed to detach from line atstations

Multiple stations possible

Break line into separate powered sections

Cabins are shuttled between sections within the stations


5/25

Gondola Uses

Urban transport (1)

Telluride

Scenic views (2)

Wallowa Lake

Ski area access fromremote parking areas (7)

Ski area transport (22)

Up to 16,400 ft long Up to 3,900 ft climb

Other Types of Lifts

Fixed-grip aerial lifts (pulse gondolas)

Carriers do not detach at stations

Entire line brought to stop or creep speed when carrierenters a station

Carriers generally attached in groups, to minimize thenumber of times line is stopped/slowed

Chair lifts

Funitels

Suspended from two cables for better stability in wind


6/25

Aerial Ropeway Characteristics

Can accommodate changes in grade betweenstations

Straight horizontal alignments typical

Gondolas & chair lifts can bend horizontally, but much moremechanically complex + maintenance-intensive

If bend in line is needed, a station is typically used

Passengers transfer between tramway cabins

Gondola carriers are shuttled between line segments


Maximum speeds

Aerial tramways: up to 12 m/s

Will be slower entering/leaving stations, and potentially whilepassing over towers

OHSU tram: 10.6 m/s, 7.6 m/s over towers

Gondolas: up to 6 m/s

Creep speed in stations: 0.25 m/s

Acceleration/deceleration takes place in transition betweenstation and line

Typically takes about a minute for a carrier to circulate througha station


7/25


Wind issues

Depending on system design features, aerial tramways andgondolas can operate in winds up to 50 mph

Line speed reduced at higher wind speeds to reduce sway

Passenger comfort issue

Damage issueswaying into towers, station platforms

For safety, designed to handle higher wind speeds

Manufacturers claim funitels can operate in winds up to 60mph

Reversible Ropeway Person Capacity

Applies to aerial tramways, funiculars

Capacity factors

Line length & speed

Acceleration/deceleration rates

Cabin capacity

Station dwell time

Number of intermediate stations, and position (evenlyspaced or not)

Passenger arrival characteristics (PHF)


8/25

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000

Line Length (ft)

PersonC

apacity

(p/h/dir)

20 p/veh

40 p/veh

60 p/veh

80 p/veh

100 p/veh

120 p/veh

140 p/veh

160 p/veh

Reversible Ropeway Person Capacity

OHSU tram (as studied)

Continuously Circulating Ropeway Capacity

Applies to gondolas, chair lifts, cable-hauled peoplemovers

Capacity factors

Headway between carriers

Size of carriers

Passenger arrival characteristics (PHF)


9/25

Continuously Circulating Ropeway Capacity

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Carrier Headway (s)

PersonC

apacity

(p/dir/h)

4 p/veh

6 p/veh

8 p/veh

10 p/veh

12 p/veh

16 p/veh

Elevators

Provide ped mobility up and down cliffs

Oregon City

Residential area to downtown

Salzburg, Austria*

Old town to park/castle

Riomaggiore, Italy* Train station to upper town

*fare charged


10/25

Inclined Elevators

Same technology as elevators, but slanted

San Diego convention center

Ped connectivity over building

Ketchikan, Alaska

Hotel access from downtown

Soquel, California

Hillside restaurant access

Inclined Planes (Funicular Railways)

Among the oldest urban mechanized modes

Monongahela Incline, Pittsburgh (1870)

Salzburg, Austria (1504): required 9 men to operate

Pittsburgh once had 15, Cincinnati 5, LA 3

Mostly replaced as technology improvements allowed othermodes to climb steep hills

Still commonly used in Europe

Valparaiso, Chile still has 15


11/25



Applications

Access from hilltop residences to business district

Pittsburgh, Johnstown, Dubuque, Los Angeles

Shuttle railroad cars over grades too steep for normalrailroads

Allegheny Portage Railroad, Pennsylvania

Diablo, Washington (dam accessstill in summer use for

tourists)

Streetcar lifts

Cincinnati


12/25


Applications

Vehicle lift, flood evacuation

Johnstown (still in use)

Canal boat lift

France (still in use)

Golf cart lift

Los Angeles area (installed 1979)

Industrial site access, ski resorts

Tourist attraction

Chattanooga, Altoona, Royal Gorge

Funicular Characteristics

Ideal alignment is a straight line

Minimizes wear-and-tear on rope

Can accommodate horizontaland vertical curves

Various passing options

Double tracks

Single track with passing siding

Line lengths from


13/25

Funicular Loading

Slanted car, loading from stairs

Panoramic view from car

Multiple doors minimize loading time

Poor wheelchair access

Wheelchair lift

Landing w/ramp or elevator

Stairs a potential safety issue

Funicular Loading

Slanted car, end loading

Longest loading time

Poor wheelchair access

Wheelchair lift

Internal stairs a potentialsafety issue


14/25

Funicular Loading

Slanted car, side loadingfrom terraces

Easy wheelchair (or golf cart)access

Intermediate loading time

Larger area required foraccess ramps

Funicular Loading

Level car, level loading

Easiest access

Fast loading

Vehicle supported by atruss underneath to keepit level


15/25

Funicular Capacity

Same factors as aerial tramway

More common to have intermediate stations

Typically ranges fromfew 100 to few 1,000p/h/dir

Istanbul metro stationfunicular planned to

serve 10,000 p/h/dir

Cog Railways

Provide higher-capacity rail access to mountainlocations too difficult to serve with normal rail

Cogwheel on trainengages centraltoothed rail

Mt. Washington, NH

(1868)

Max. 48% grade inSwitzerland


16/25

OHSUAerial Tram

PortlandAerialTransportation,In

c.

Why a Tram?

OHSU running out of space to expand onMarquam Hill

Limited road capacity to Marquam Hill

Land becoming available along river 500 verticalfeet below

How to connect two separate campuses?


17/25

OHSU Transportation Needs

A direct, rapid, convenient, dependable,predictable means for researchers, students andeducators, and medical personnel to circulatebetween the two parts of campus to sustain themedical-research synergy

OHSU estimated the need to serve 750 peak hourdirectional trips

Initial OHSU Studies

1998, Jewett Engineering, Ltd.

Described modal alternatives and planning-level costs

2001, Transport Systems, Inc.

Compared and evaluated modal alternatives, providedplanning-level costs


18/25

City Peer Review

December 2001: Portland Bureau of Planning andPortland Office of Transportation commissioned apeer review of the OHSU studies

Organized by Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Engineers, architect/planner, ropeway expert, transit &modeling expert

Evaluate OHSU studies for reasonableness, reliability

Suggest areas for further investigation

Panel generally agreed with conclusions, based on OHSUperspective; but offered thoughts on broader objectives thatthe City might also consider

Campus Location Alternatives

North Macadam area

Area between PSU and I-405

Area immediately south of I-405, centered onArthur Street


19/25

Modal Alternatives

Shuttle bus

Aerial tram

Gondola

Funicular

Automated people mover

Various combinations of the above

Shuttle Bus

Shuttle bus undesirable to OHSU

Travel times longer than desired due to indirect routingsimposed by topography and street network

Traffic congestion produces unpredictable travel times

Could serve a distribution function in addition to apoint-to-point transportation function


20/25

Aerial Tramway

Fastest travel time between terminals

No horizontal deviations in route possible

No intermediate stations possible

Minimum number of towers (2)

Cabin 65 or more feet above Gibbs Street

Attendant in each cabin

Headway can vary during day

Gondola

Fastest overall travel time (wait + in-vehicle)

Horizontal deviations in route possible, butmechanically complex

Intermediate station at Barbur possible

Greater number of towers (7)

Cabin elevation lowercloser to buildings alongGibbs Street

No attendent in carriers


21/25

Funicular

Intermediate stations at Barbur & Corbett possible

Large number of guideway supports(roughly three dozen)

Cabin elevation lowbelow building roofs

Noisier

Automatic seat leveling system required because ofgrade differences

Lower OHSU terminal required (68 feet lower)

People Mover

Not possible for entire line (too steep betweenBarbur & OHSU)

Funicular + people mover combination looked at

People mover quieter through neighborhood

Transfer required at Barbur

Similar advantages & disadvantages to funicular otherwise


22/25

Aerial Tramway + Funicular

Aerial tramway between OHSU and NorthMacadam, funicular between OHSU and Barbur

Improved transit access to OHSU via Barbur

Change of level required at OHSU for funicular passengers(to transfer, or to get to other buildings)

Added cost

Indirect route from Barbur to North Macadam

OHSU Recommendation

Aerial tramway

Fast travel time (under three minutes in-vehicle time)

Least number of employees

Lowest maintenance cost

Lowest capital cost of aerial options


23/25

Neighborhood

Perspective

NoTramtoOHSU

Neighborhood Objections

Loss of privacy

People can look into your backyard

Safety issues

Earthquake risk

Helicopter path to OHSU

View impacts

Lowered property values

Incompatable with historic district


24/25

Subsequent History

July 2001: City council passes resolution directingthe Planning Bureau to consider the aerial tram aspart of the Marquam Hill Plan

September 2001: LUBA rejects No Tram to OHSUappeal of the city council resolution

Technicality: resolution wasnt a final land-use decisionsubject to LUBA jurisdiction

LUBA didnt rule on underlying issues (incompatability with

comprehensive plan policies, land use impacts)

Subsequent History

2002-2003: Tram design competition

City wanted something more than a functional, but notparticularly aesthetic, ski resort lift

Angelil/Graham/ Pfenninger/Scholl Architecture wins thecompetition

2003-2004: Design refinements

Originally proposed wood structures had too much deflectionto meet design needs, were growing to Paul Bunyanproportions

Steel now being used instead


25/25

Subsequent History

Current cost estimate: $22 million to construct

Costs have ranged from $1028 million at various pointsfrom concept to present

Scheduled start of construction: 2005

Opening: 2006

aerialropeways[1]

Documents