Amsterdam Urban Aerial Cable Car; Stedelijke kabelbaan in Amsterdam

(1)

Delft University of Technology

FACULTY MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING

Department Marine and Transport Technology Mekelweg 2 2628 CD Delft the Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15-2782889 Fax +31 (0)15-2781397 www.mtt.tudelft.nl

This report consists of 45 pages and 3 appendices. It may only be reproduced literally and as a whole. For commercial purposes only with written authorization of Delft University of Technology. Requests for consult are only taken into consideration under the condition that the applicant denies all legal rights on liabilities concerning the contents of the advice.

Specialization: Transport Engineering and Logistics Report number: 2015.TEL.7963

Title: Amsterdam Urban Aerial Cable Car

Author: W.S. Romijn

Title (in Dutch) Stedelijke kabelbaan in Amsterdam

Assignment: literature Confidential: no

Initiator (university): Prof.dr.ir. Gabriël Lodewijks

Supervisor: Prof.dr.ir. Gabriël Lodewijks

(2)

Delft University of Technology

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING

Department of Marine and Transport Technology Mekelweg 2 2628 CD Delft the Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15-2782889 Fax +31 (0)15-2781397 www.mtt.tudelft.nl

Student: W.S. Romijn Assignment type: Literature Supervisor: G. Lodewijks Report number: 2015.TEL.7963

Specialization: TEL Confidential: No

Creditpoints (EC): 10

Subject: Cable Cars – City Transport

A cable car system will be designed to transport passengers from location A to location B in

Amsterdam. This literature assignment is to survey the technologies and application of cable cars in city transport.

For more details/requirements of this literature assignment please contact Prof. dr. ir. G. Lodewijks. This report should be arranged in such a way that all data is structurally presented in graphs, tables, and lists with belonging descriptions and explanations in text.

The report should comply with the guidelines of the section. Details can be found on the website. The supervisor,

(3)

Amsterdam Urban Aerial Cable Car

Walter Romijn

1359487

A literature study

Transportation Engineering & Logistics Technical University of Delft

The Netherlands 17-7-2015

(4)

Abstract

Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands and is located on the banks of the river IJ. With its historical city center and its numerous amount of bicycles it is known around the world. At this moment all of the city is connected by public transport and can easily be travelled in this way, except for the north of the city. This part of the city is only connected by a number of ferries and will be connected by the Noord-Zuid lijn in 2017. To improve the connection between the parts of the city, a cable-car has been suggested. Cable cars are mostly known for their application in mountainous regions and ski resorts and the industry is still growing. The urban aerial cable car has already been successful in a number of cities across the world, and it all started with the Metrocable in Medellin in Colombia, where it was used to connect a poor area of the city to the centre, improving the connection and quality of life in that area. Due to the success of the cable car in Medellin, more lines were constructed in the city and are now a part of daily life. As cable cars come in a variation of shapes and sizes, a distinction is made between these and a tricable gondola was chosen to cross the river starting at the Azartplein and travel to the Zamenhofstraat. For the design the Rheinseilbahn in Koblenz is chosen as an example as this cable car has almost the same span over the river Rhine and has the capacity to keep waiting times to a minimum. The tricable gondola is able to overcome all difficulties on the trajectory and, as was expected of the city of Amsterdam, it will be able to transport bicycles across the river.

(5)

List of Tables

3.1 Service and Technology characteristics of Gondolas . . . 14

3.2 Cost per kilometer for nine monorail projects (The Monorail society) . . . 16

3.3 Cost and capacity for the alternative modes of transport . . . 18

4.1 Service Characteristics of the cable cars discussed in Chapter 4 . . . 27

5.1 Weight Factors . . . 34

5.2 Multi Criteria Analysis . . . 34

B.1 Expected passengers per day for the time period 2014 to 2025 . . . 42

List of Figures

1.1 Map of Amsterdam . . . 6

2.1 Map of the Oostveer ferry . . . 8

3.1 Monocable gondola . . . 13 3.2 Bicable gondola . . . 13 3.3 Tricable gondola . . . 13 3.4 Aerial tramway . . . 14 3.5 Monorail . . . 15 3.6 Funicular . . . 16

4.2 Map of the Metro and Metrocable in Medellin . . . 20

4.1 The Medelling gondola . . . 20

4.3 The Polinka in Wroclaw Poland . . . 21

(8)

4.4 The Portland Aerial Tram in Portland, Oregon . . . 22

4.5 The Ngong Ping Cable Car 360, Hong Kong . . . 24

4.6 One of the cars of the Seilbahn Koblenz, Germany . . . 25

4.7 Map of the Rheinseilbahn Koblenz, Germany . . . 25

5.1 Map of the ferries in Amsterdam crossing the IJ, Line 915 is the Oostveer . . 29

5.2 Distance over the river IJ that has to be crossed . . . 29

5.3 Plans for the further expansion of the cable car in Amsterdam . . . 30

5.4 Azartplein and Sumatrakade . . . 32

5.5 Area for the station on the Azartplein . . . 32

5.6 Area for the station at the Johan van Hasselt . . . 32

5.7 A pylon constructed . . . 33

5.8 Length of the system . . . 36

List of Symbols

a Horizontal spacing of loads

b n(n−1)₂

c u(u−1)₂

G Weight of an individual concentrated load

m Horizontal distance from left support to the first load n Number of concentrated loads

s Horizontal distance between supports t Horizontal component of cable tension

u Number of loads to left of xy in a multiple loaded span

w Weigth per meter of horiontal length of span for a uniformly ditributed load

x Horizontal distance from support to xy y Vertical deflection from support to xy

(9)

Chapter 1

Introduction

“There’s a human desire to get a bird’s eye view of new places, to get high up. A cable car fits with that.”

— Steven Dale, strategist at The Gondola Project

We all know the cable car from the ski resorts, where they take you up into the mountains so you can get out and enjoy the thrill of zooming down the slopes after which you can start all over again, but this mode of transport is rarely seen outside of these holiday resorts and it is not something that easily comes to mind when speaking of urban public transport, until 2004. In 2004 the city of Medellin in Colombia, opened the first urban aerial cable car public transport system (Brand and D´avila, 2011).

In Medellin the gondola was installed to connect a low-income area of the city to the ex-isting overland metro mass transport system to increase the accessibility of that area. The area connected had multiple geographic difficulties to overcome such as steep slopes and very dense urbanization. Due to the success of this project the interest in urban aerial cable car transport systems has increased immensely, not only in South America, but also in Europe and Asia. This interest has also spread to Amsterdam.

Amsterdam is a city that is split by the river IJ, making a division of the city on the north end of the historical city centre. At this moment the north of the city is only connected by ferry, that lacks the required capacity needed. And an underground metro line is planned to be finished in 2017 and will run from station Amsterdam Zuid to the IJdoornlaan in the north of Amsterdam. This however only connects a small part of the north of Amsterdam as it is a single straight line. To better connect these two parts of the city, a gondola has been

(10)

Chapter 1. Introduction

Figure 1.1. Map of Amsterdam

suggested to the city council and in March of 2015 it was named a ’Favourable Option’ by the Advisory committee for the improvement of connectivity between the banks of the river IJ. It is neccessary to improve the connectivity between the two parts of Amsterdam due to the rapid increase in utilization of the ferries and the development of the northern areas of the city.

This report presents the findings of a literature study on aerial urban cable car transport systems. The objective is to test the urban cable car against the requirements for capacity and possibilities set by the city of Amsterdam and the designers of the system. And to find some alternatives for a mass transport system to connect the north and south of Amsterdam, which are seperated by the river IJ. Chapter 2 will show the requirements set by the city and the designers, Chapter 3 will look into different alternatives for the solution after which Chapter 4 will show multiple examples of where an urban aerial cable car has been used be-fore. Chapter 5 will show calculations for the height of the system over the river and a Multi Criteria Analysis to select a solution for Amsterdam and Chapter 6 contains my conclusions.

(11)

Chapter 2

Requirements for the city of

Amsterdam

This chapter covers the requirements for the cable car from the city of Amsterdam. These contain only a few as the project is in an early stage. The requirements contain that people are able to bring their bicycles, the height over the river IJ, the trajectory and the capacity of the cable car.

2.1 Bicycles

As the city of Amsterdam is known for the amount of bicycles, the city has set the requirement that the cable car must provide for facilities to transport these. This includes the accessibility in the stations and the available time to get the bicycle in the cabins. Regular cable cars rotate through the stations and passengers have only a limited time to enter, which could be a problem when transporting bicycles. For example, it is possible to bring your bicycle into the trains in the Netherlands, these trains stop for a minute at the smaller stations, in this amount of time a passenger should be able to wait for other passengers to exit the train and then board the train with his or her bicycle. So therefore a boarding time of 30 seconds is assumed to be required.

2.2 Height

The river IJ is a highly used waterway which the city of Amsterdam wants to cross with a cable car. As a cable car can not be retracted or lifted as a bridge, there has to be a certain

(12)

Chapter 2. Requirements for the city of Amsterdam

Figure 2.1. Map of the Oostveer ferry

clearance to let ships pass. This requirement is not set by the city but by Rijkswaterstaat (RWS), the Dutch Department of Waterways and Public Works. According to them the clearance between the water and the cable car should at all times be at least 9.1m. Taking into account the maximum water height in the river IJ, the cable car needs to be completely above NAP +890cm (see Appendix A).

2.3 Oostveer trajectory

For the first trajectory the city of Amsterdam has chosen the route of the Oostveer ferry as shown in figure 2.1, this ferry travels from the Azartplein to the Johan van Hasselt. This is a ferry that has been put into use to accommodate the needs of people traveling from the east to the north of Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2014). Starting on March 15th, 2014 as a pilot project and has been extended to March 15th, 2016.

(13)

2.4 Capacity

The Oostveer ferry has an average number of 1,678 passengers per day including bicycles in the period from March 15th, 2014 to October 31st, 2014. Comparing these numbers to data found at other ferries in Amsterdam such as the Distelwegveer and the Houthavenveer for the transportation of passengers throughout the year, the estimated average number of passengers for the Oostveer is set at 1,572 passengers per day (Groenewegen, 2014). This number of passengers is not sufficient as passengers experience waiting times and the ferry is loaded to maximum capacity most of the times. The cable car must also be able to keep up with any possible growth of passenger numbers. The expected number of passengers per day is:

• 2014: 1,572 passengers per day • 2015: 1,674 passengers per day • 2016: 1,783 passengers per day • 2017: 1,899 passengers per day

These numbers show a growth of 6.5% per year, which will result in a passenger total per day in the year 2025 of 3,348 passengers. As 53% of these passengers is commuting to or from work and 12% to or from school (Groenewegen, 2014), peaks will be found in the morning and afternoon. As 65% of all passengers use the ferry twice a day, 32.5% will use the ferry in the morning which is a total of 1,088 passengers in 2025. As most schools and employees start at 8:30 in the morning and it is assumed that people only have a maximum of half an hour travel remaining after the ferry, these 1,088 passengers will want to use the ferry or cable car between 8:00 and 8:30 in the morning. This leads to a capacity of 2,176 passengers per hour as a maximum demand in 2025. As this is derived from the average number of travellers per day, peaks will occur and more capacity might be needed. Also to be able to keep up with further growth and a lifespan longer than 10 years the required capacity of the system is set at 3,700 passengers per hour per direction, the same as for the Rheinseilbahn in Koblenz in Germany which is used as an example for this system by the city of Amsterdam. More information will be given in section 4.5. Furthermore the system must be able to scale its capacity to the actual demand to account for peaks in demand and save energy at other moments.

(14)

2.5 Cost and polution

The city of Amsterdam is looking for a solution that is easily implemented in the city without major construction and inconvenience. The traffic on the river must be able to continue to use the river unimpediatly and without delay. Therefore the infrastructure has to be kept to a minimum and pollution of exhausts and noise must be limited. To reduce noise pollution and energy usage during non-peak hours, the system must be able to scale with the demand for transportation.

2.6 Conclusion

The system that is to be designed for the connection between the south and north sides of Amsterdam has to meet the following requirements:

• The possibility to transport bicycles

• A minimum height of 9.1m above the water level

• It wil have to follow the same route as the Oostveer ferry

• A capacity of 3,700 passengers per hour per direction with the possibility to scale down • Be build to the minimal cost

(15)

Chapter 3

Alternatives

This chapter covers possible alternatives for the cable car in Amsterdam. As the city of Amsterdam is looking for alternatives other than the conventional modes of public transport, such as bus, light rail and subway systems, these are left out. Both suspended and bottom supported people movers are covered in respect to capacity and cost to build. This data will be summarized in table 3.3. The building cost is dependent on the number of stations, the length of the system, the topography of the area, passenger requirements and speed, therefore the costs are only an approximation.

3.1 Suspended people movers

Suspended people movers are cars suspended from cables that move either in a continuous loop, or go back and forth on a single line, mostly with another car that moves in the opposite direction. The first are called gondolas and are used around the world in ski resorts usually mounted on a single rope. The second are aerial tramways that have a larger capacity per car but are limited in a single car per line. Table 3.1 summarizes the technological, service, and operation characteristics of the available suspended people movers.

3.1.1 Gondolas

Gondolas are mostly known for rapid transport up the mountain in a ski resort and are usually small to medium sized and carry between 4 to 14 passengers per time (Neumann, 1999). Gondolas can be seperated into three different types, depending on the number of cables used to support the cars.

(16)

Chapter 3. Alternatives

3.1.1.1 Monocable

This type of cable car has a single cable as shown in figure 3.1. This cable is used to pull and support the cars and moves along a loop. Systems of this kind typically have a de-clutching mechanism, a device that allows the gondolas to be uncoupled from the haul rope, to decrease the speed at the stations without affecting the overall flow of the cars. Due to the single cable the size of the cars is limited and in general these are able to transport 15 people or less. The capacity lies around 1,800 passengers per hour per direction (PPHPD). Depending on the length of the system it is possible to have more than 100 cars travelling in the system. It has a maximum span between its pylons of 350 m (Alshalalfah et al., 2013) and usually has a de-clutching mechanism to lower the speed of the car at the stations for entering and exiting of the passengers. The costs for a monocable gondola system is approximately $5 -20 million per kilometer (Dale, -2010a).

3.1.1.2 Bicable

Bicable gondolas (figure 3.2) use a second rope to carry the weight of the cars and is therefore know as a 2S gondola. This system also has a de-clutching mechanism to uncouple the cars from the hauling rope at the stations to reduce the speed so boarding and disembarking are easier. By using the support cable the distance between the pylons can be increased to 700 m (Alshalalfah et al., 2013), the number of passengers is still limited to a maximum of 16 per car, as the weight of the car is carried by only one cable. The capacity of this system is 1,800 PPHPD and it is possible to have more than 100 cars depending on the length of the system. Due to the second rope it is possible to increase the distance between pylons to 700 m. The cost for a bicable gondola system lies between $15 - 25 million per kilometer (Dale, 2010b).

3.1.1.3 Tricable

When a gondola uses two ropes to carry the weight and one to haul it along it is known as a tricable or 3S gondola (figure 3.3). As with the mono- and bicable systems, this system has a de-clutching mechanism to make the boardin and disembarking process easier. With the two support cables the distance between the pylons can be increased to 3,000 m (Alshalalfah et al., 2013) and the capacity is increased to 35 passengers per car. This leads to a capacity of 3,000 PPHPD with the potential to carry even more, which can be seen in Koblenz as explained in section 4.5. As with the mono- and bicable system it is possible to have more

(17)

than 100 cars depending on the length of the system. The cost for a tricable gondola system lies between $10 - 24 million per kilometer (Dale, 2010d).

Figure 3.1. Monocable gondola Figure 3.2. Bicable gondola Figure 3.3. Tricable gondola

3.1.2 Aerial tramways

Aerial tramways (figure 3.4) are large cars that shuttle back and forth between two stations. These systems consist of two cars that depend on each other, as one can not leave until the other car is ready. The cars are suspended, like bicable or tricable systems, by one or two ropes with a second or third to move them along. Due to the fact that aerial trams are fixed on their ropes corners can not be implemented in the system which limits its use to a straight line.

The capacity of the aerial tram is limited by the shuttle-based nature and is directly pro-portional to the length of the system. Waiting times between cars are propro-portional with the travel time so the longer the system, the longer the waiting time. To compensate for the long waiting times, the cars are made larger and are by far the largest of all aerial cable transit systems, with cabin capacity up to 200 passengers (Dale, 2010c) and 2,000 PPHPD (Alsha-lalfah et al., 2013). Aerial trams are one of the most expensive cable technologies because the station size is much larger and the system carries three cables. Aerial trams cost range from $10 million to $50 million per kilometer (Dale, 2010c).

Due to the fact that the capacity of the aerial tram is limited by the length of the system, this mode of transport is less suited for Amsterdam.

(18)

Figure 3.4. Aerial tramway

System characteristics

Aerial tramway Monocable Bicable Tricable

Cable configuration Cabins are

suspended from one or more fixed cables and are pulled by another cable

Cabins are suspended and pulled by the same cable (a moving loop of cable)

Cabins are

suspended from one fixed cable and are pulled by another cable

Cabins are

suspended from two cables and are pulled by another cable

Detachability The two cabins cannot be detached from the moving cable

Cabins are set at regularly spaced intervals and they detach from the cable at the terminal for unloading and loading

same as Monocable same as Monocable

Maximum number of passenger cabins

Two cabins Depends on line length

same as Monocable same as Monocable Maximum number

of stations

Maximum of three stations

Can have multiple stations

same as Monocable same as Monocable Maximum distance

between pylons

Less than 1,000m 350 m 700 m 3,000 m

Cabin capacity High capacity (up to 200 passengers/ cabin)

Low capacity (up to 15 passengers/ cabin)

Low capacity (up to 16 passengers/ cabin) Medium capacity (up to 35 passengers/cabin) Maximum transport capacity

2,000 passengers/h 3,600 passengers/h 3,600 passengers/h 6,000 passengers/h Speed Up to 43.2 km/h Up to 21.6 km/h Up to 21.6 km/h Up to 30.6 km/h

(19)

Figure 3.5. Monorail

3.2 Bottom supported people movers

Bottom supported people movers use a stationary base on which the cars move along, and they are either moved by a power supply situated in a fixed location, or they have their own drive system. The more commonly known systems are the trams, trains and busses, as these use roads and rails as surface and each has their own drive system. This section covers two of the less known systems, one with its own drive system, and one with a power supply situated in a fixed location. The first is a monorail system and the second is a funicular.

3.2.1 Monorail

A monorail (figure 3.5) is suspended from or straddle a narrow guideway, the vehicles are wider than the guideway and are able to slope up or down and go through subway tunnels. Each car has its own drive system and runs along a single rail that without the train needs a very limited amount of space. The construction consists of pylons with the track on top, and can be installed relatively quick compared to the more traditional modes of public transport.

The capacity of the monorail depends on the size of the cars. For example, the Walt Dis-ney World Monorail System uses 12 trains for 17 hours per day and can carry over 200,000 passengers a day (The Monorail society), which is 980 passengers per hour per train. The capacity of the monorail therefore is 11,750 PPHPD.

(20)

Figure 3.6. Funicular

Name Year build Cost

Tokyo-Haneda Monorail 1964 $15 million/km Kitakyushu Monorail 1985 $62 million/km MGM-Bally’s Monorail 1995 $25 million/km Okinawa Monorail 2003 $27 million/km Kuala Lumpur Monorail 2003 $36 million/km Las Vergas Monorail 2004 $88 million/km Palm Jumeirah Monorail 2006 $73.4 million/km Metrail 2008 $20 million/km Mumbai Monorail 2008 $27.25 million/km

Table 3.2. Cost per kilometer for nine monorail projects (The Monorail society)

The cost per kilometer of the monorail is an average of nine projects shown in table 3.2. Which leads to a cost of$41.52 million/km. These cost are for tracks mostly along roads and not crossing rivers, the cost for Amsterdam will probably be higher. The construction of a bridge across the river IJ will require a great deal of civil engineering and will probably block the river for a certain period of time, therefore this is a less suitable option for Amsterdam.

(21)

3.2.2 Funicular

A funicular is a tram that is able to climb up hills of up to 100% gradient slope because it is attached to another train using a rope. The two trains run along the same track with a passing section in between. Because one train moves down as the other moves uphill, this system has a high efficiency as gravity does most of the work. Modern funiculars can have suspended or controlled cars that keep the floor horizontal, even if there are wide changes in the line inclination (Marocchi, 2011). The capacity of a funicular depends on the length of the system, at the same way an aerial tramway does, the longer the system, the longer the travel time and thus longer waiting times. Trains can have a capacity of 300 passengers and travel with speeds over 40 km/h. For a system of 2 km with these numbers and a waiting time of 1 minute at the stations, the capacity is 4,500 PPHPD.

For the construction of a funicular on regular terrain the cost lie around the $10 million/km (Marocchi, 2011). This is however for the construction on a hillside were only a level surface has to be made with the stations and the tracks, whereas in Amsterdam a bridge must be constructed. The funicular should be able to climb to the required height without much trouble, but it still needs tracks to ride on, therefore it is a less suitable option.

3.3 Summary of alternatives

When looking at these alternatives and keeping in mind that the city of Amsterdam wants a solution that is easily implemented and with the least amount of inconvenience, it is clear that the suspended people movers are favored over the bottom supported modes of transport. Then by looking at the capacity the gondola comes out on top, as this has higher capacity and less waiting times. Within the gondolas the tricable is the best solution, as the cost are comparable with the cost of a bicable system but the possible distance between the pylons is much larger. Table 3.3 summarizes all costs and capacities of the different transport modes.

(22)

Mode Cost Capacity

Monocable gondola $5-20 million/km 1,800 PPHPD Bicable gondola $15-25 million/km 1,800 PPHPD Tricable gondola $10-24 million/km 3,000 PPHPD Aerial tramways $10-50 million/km 2,000 PPHPD Monorail $41.52 million/km 11,750 PPHPD Funicular $10 million/km 4,500 PPHPD

(23)

Chapter 4

History of the urban aerial cable

car

This chapter covers the history of the urban aerial cable car for mass transport starting with the cable car in Medellin, Colombia followed by the cable car in Wroclaw, Poland. Next is the aerial tram that has been constructed in Portland, Oregon after which the Ngong Ping cable car 360 in Hong Kong will be discussed. Finally the Rheinseilbahn Koblenz will be looked in to.

4.1 Metrocable, Medellin in Colombia

The world’s first urban aerial cable car used for public transport finished construction in 2004 in the city of Medellin in Colombia. The project was developed to connect one of the barrios to the city’s metro line to improve the accessibility. Because of the geographical location of Medellin conventional modes of public transport are difficult to implement. The first line to be constructed, Line K, was build in the northeastern sector of the city, which is a poor and inaccessible part of the city due to the difficult sloping terrain which is broken up by smaller valleys. These deep valleys are carved out over the years by the many streams running to the main river. Furthermore, this area is heavily urbanized due to informal settlements and land invasions dating from the 1950s and ’60s. By the end of the century this area contained over 400 dwellings/hectare (Brand and D´avila, 2011). Due to the heavy urbanization of the area there was little to no road access, however the area was served relatively well by a con-ventional bus.

(24)

Chapter 4. History of the urban aerial cable car

Figure 4.2. Map of the Metro and Metrocable in Medellin

Due to the success of Line K, two more lines were planned and realized within the next six years to further increase the accessibility of the different parts of the city. Line J was finished in 2008 and serviced a sector in the west of the city with a landscape which was similar but more physical and socially divers. Line L was introduced in 2010 to connect an ecological park on the edge of the city with Line K to attract tourists to this area.

Figure 4.1. The Medelling gondola

Figure 4.2 shows a map of the metro system in Medellin with the cable car lines J, K, and L. Line J is shown in Yellow, K in light green and L in brown. Blue, purple, and orange are the more conventional metro lines. The blue metro line runs along the river Medellin. This course was chosen for little inclination along the river and for the positioning of the city that is concentrated on the banks. The type of cable car used for the Metrocable is a monocable gondola as described in section 3.1.1.1.

(25)

4.2 Polinka, Wroclaw in Poland

Situated on the banks of the river Odra in Poland lies the city of Wroclaw, a historical city with a vibrant past. During its existence it has been part of the Kingdom of Poland, Bo-hemia, Hungary, the Austrian Empire, Russia and Germany. After World War II it became part of Poland again.

In 1702 the University of Wroclaw was founded on the bank of the river Odra and after World War II it was rebuild and reorganized into the organization it is today. Up until 2013, students and faculty staff could only cross the river by using the Grunwaldzki bridge which was a 20 minute walk, but on October 1st, 2013, the University opened the ‘Polinka’.

The type of cable car used for the Polinka is a bicable gondola as is visible in figure 4.3 and described in section 3.1.1.2.

Figure 4.3. The Polinka in Wroclaw Poland

(26)

4.3 Aerial Tram, Portland in Oregon

In 1999 the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) developed a 20-year plan to address its future growth in the campus, which is located on top of Marquam Hill in Portland, Oregon. Each year OHSU serves 200.000 patients and 11,000 employees. Due to topographical and road constraints and the continuing expansion it was necessary to move part of the campus to another location.

The new location for the campus was to be South Waterfront, which was chosen with the assumption that a new rapid and reliable transit connection between the campus and the wa-terfront could be realized (Portland Aerial Tram). After further research it was found that an aerial tram would fit the requirements the most to provide door-to-door travel between the campuses in less than 15 minutes. Therefore construction of the tram began in 2005 and in December 2006 the Portland Aerial Tram opened its doors to the employees and students and on January 27, 2007 the tram was opened to the public.

Figure 4.4. The Portland Aerial Tram in Portland, Oregon

The Portland Aerial Tram uses two tram cabins that operate on a parallel track and both are pulled at the same time by a haul rope. This haul rope is driven by an engine at the lower

(27)

terminal and pulls each 12 ton cabin. Besides the haul rope, there are two support cables for each car that carry the weight of the car and its passengers, which can be up to 78 people weighing a maximum of 13 tons, that combines to a total weight of 25 tons.

The lower terminal of the tram is located in the South Waterfront neighborhood, next to a stop of the Portland Streetcar line, which connects the South Waterfront with the centre of the city. The upper terminal is located on the OHSU’s Marquam Hill campus. Between the two terminals there is a single pylon to increase the hight of the cables and cars to have enough clearance over the interstate highway.

4.4 Ngong Ping Cable Car 360 in Hong Kong

After finishing a feasibility study in 2000, the Hong Kong government issued an invitation for detailed proposals for a gondola system that connects Hong Kong to Lantau Island. The objective according to The Tourism Commission is to enhance Hong Kong’s position as a leading tourist destination in the region (Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, 2001).

The system was scheduled to be opened in June 2006, but due to an accident during the trial run the opening was postponed to November 2006. During the trial run one of the cabins arriving at the Ngong Ping station collided with a cabin in the station that was late in its departure. Immediately the entire system was stopped by the safety system, trapping 500 volunteers in the air for 2 hours.

Ngong Ping Cable Car 360 is a bicable gondola lift system that links Tung Chung Town Center and Ngong Ping, both situated on Lantau Island. It uses a continuos circulating bicable gondola ropeway system as described in section 3.1.1.2, that runs across the south-ern shore of the Hong Kong Intsouth-ernational Airport. Between the stations there are 8 pylons supporting the cable and 2 angle stations, here the cars are detached from the haul rope to change direction, at these stations it is not possible to get on or off of the cable car.

4.5 Rheinseilbahn, Koblenz in Germany

In 2011 the city of Koblenz, Germany was host to the Federal Horticultural Show (BUGA) and as a part of the show the Rheinseilbahn was constructed. It was meant to be a connection Walter Romijn Amsterdam Urban Aerial Cable Car 23

(28)

Figure 4.5. The Ngong Ping Cable Car 360, Hong Kong

from the city to the show and would give visitors a bird’s eye view while traveling with the ropeway across the Rhine to the Ehrenbreitstein fortress. In 2011 UNESCO gave permission to keep the cable car till the end of its life in 2026 (Rhein-Zeitung, 2011).

The cable car was constructed by the Doppelmayr Group and consists of two stations on either side of the Rhine river. The system used here is a 3S gondola as described in section 3.1.1.3. Due to the travel speed of 16 km/h the Rheinseilbahn has a transportation capacity of 7,600 persons per hour in both directions (Seilbahn Koblenz, 2011). This is the first time the 3S system is used in an urban environment and up until then it was the only aerial ropeway that could transport 7,600 passengers per hour (Koblenz-Touristik, 2010).

(29)

Chapter 4. History of the urban aerial cable car River “Rhein“ River “Mosel“ Ropeway “Rhein“ Station “Deutsches Eck“ Station “Ehrenbreitstein“ Fort “Ehrenbreitstein“

Ropeway Preview

2010 Koblenz

Doppelmayr Seilbahnen GmbH Rickenbacherstraße 8-10 6961 Wolfurt/Austria T +43 5574 604, F +43 5574 75590 dm@doppelmayr.com www.doppelmayr.com

Single and group tickets

Bottom station Doppelmayr ropeway at the Konrad Adenauer

embankment

Koblenz-Touristik, T +49 261 31 304,

F +49 261 10 04 388, info-hbf@koblenz-touristik.de

Werner Sobek Design

Koblenz-Touristik

Historic city centre Tickets for bulk purchasers

Bundesgartenschau Koblenz 2011 GmbH

Kastorpfaffenstr. 21, D-56068 Koblenz

T +49 261 702011, F+49 261 70201-090

info@buga2011.de, www.buga2011.de

Figure 4.6. One of the cars of the Seilbahn Koblenz, Germany

River “Rhein“ River “Mosel“ Ropeway “Rhein“ Station “Deutsches Eck“ Station “Ehrenbreitstein“ Fort “Ehrenbreitstein“

Ropeway Preview

2010 Koblenz

Doppelmayr Seilbahnen GmbH Rickenbacherstraße 8-10 6961 Wolfurt/Austria T +43 5574 604, F +43 5574 75590 dm@doppelmayr.com www.doppelmayr.com Single and group tickets

Bottom station Doppelmayr ropeway at the Konrad Adenauer

embankment

Koblenz-Touristik, T +49 261 31 304,

F +49 261 10 04 388, info-hbf@koblenz-touristik.de

Werner Sobek Design

Koblenz-Touristik

Historic city centre

Tickets for bulk purchasers

Bundesgartenschau Koblenz 2011 GmbH

Kastorpfaffenstr. 21, D-56068 Koblenz

T +49 261 702011, F+49 261 70201-090

info@buga2011.de, www.buga2011.de

Figure 4.7. Map of the Rheinseilbahn Koblenz, Germany

(30)

Figure 4.7 shows the path the Rheinseilbahn takes over the river, the Rhine here has a span of 287 meters. The Rheinseilbahn covers this span at an angle and due to the placement of the pylons the free span is 850 meters with a height difference of 112 meters (Seilbahn Koblenz, 2011).

4.6 Service Characteristics

(31)

Systems Country Type Opening Year Line length (m) Line speed (km/h) Cabin capacity Offered line capacity (PPDPH) Number of cabins in service Daily ridership Cost (e) Medellin Metrocable

Colombia Monocable 2004 2,789 18 10 3,000 93 40,000 23 million

Wroclaw Polinka

Poland Bicable 2013 460 NA 15 NA NA NA 2.9 million

Portland Aerial Tram

USA Aerial Tram 2007 1,005 35.4 78 936 2 3,800 50.42 million

Ngong Ping Cable car 360

Hong Kong Bicable 2006 5,700 27 17 3,500 112 4,200 NA

Rhienseilbahn Germany Tricable 2010 1,800 18 35 3,700 18 NA 13 million

(32)

Chapter 5

Aerial cable car in Amsterdam

In this chapter the trajectory of the first cable car in Amsterdam will be discussed with the location of the stations and the stretch of the IJ that the cable car has to cross after which the design will be looked into.

5.1 Trajectory

For the trajectory of the first cable car in Amsterdam it has been chosen to follow the direction of the Oostveer, a ferry that crosses the IJ at the Azartplein to the Zamenhofstraat, which at this moment is one of the few public transport links between the north of Amsterdam and the city centre. The Oostveer ferry is only accessible for pedestrians and cyclist and crosses the river in 6 minutes and runs from 6:30h in the morning to 22:30h at night (GVB, 2015). Figure 5.1 shows all the ferries in Amsterdam with line 915 being the Oostveer.

Within this trajectory lie a number of difficulties starting with crossing the river which is a span of 941 meters as is measured in Figure 5.2. Section 2.2 shows the requirement for the height of the cable car, which should be at least NAP +890cm (see appendix A).

Also the exact location of the stations and a storage facility must determined on either side of the river in areas with high building density. The storage facility will have to have enough capacity for all cars and space for people to do the maintenance of the cable car. Besides the stations and the storage facility, pylons of a certain hight must be constructed to make sure that the bottom of the cable car has enough clearance over the river.

In future plans the cable car will be expanded to connect a larger piece of Amsterdam as can be seen in Figure 5.3. These plans include several lines that will connect parts of Amsterdam that require more public transport connections but that have limited space available for new infrastructure.

(33)

Chapter 5. Aerial cable car in Amsterdam

Figure 5.1. Map of the ferries in Amsterdam crossing the IJ, Line 915 is the Oostveer

Figure 5.2. Distance over the river IJ that has to be crossed

(34)

Figure 5.3. Plans for the further expansion of the cable car in Amsterdam

5.2 Difficulties

The difficulties that lie within the plans for Amsterdam are both the location of the ground facilities and also the height of the pylons that need to be constructed to cross the river IJ. As the ropes of the cable car sags due to the weight of the cable car, the pylons must be constructed in such a way that the height includes the distance of sag in the rope. The sag of the ropes is dependent on the tension set on them. By using the equations presented in the Wire Rope Engineering Handbook by United States Steel (United States Steel, 1968), the required height and tension in the cables can be found. The following equation is given to calculate the deflection y:

y = G t x(n − u) − m xn s − u − a bx s − c +wx(s − x) 2t (5.1)

With the following variables:

• G, Weight of an individual concentrated load • t, Horizontal component of cable tension • x, Horizontal distance from support to xy

(35)

• n, Number of concentrated loads

• u, Number of loads to left of xy in a multiple loaded span • m, Horizontal distance from left support to the first load • y, Vertical deflection from support to xy

• s, Horizontal distance between supports • a, Horizontal spacing of loads

• b = n(n−1) 2

• c = u(u−1) 2

• w, Weigth per meter of horiontal length of span for a uniformly ditributed load then if: z = x(n − u) − mxn s − u − a bx s − c (5.2) then: y = 2Gz + wx(s − x) 2t (5.3) and: t = 2Gz + wx(s − x) 2y (5.4)

Now following these formulas Appendix C shows, for example, that with a deflection of 10 meters a tension of 682,077 kg is required. Taking into account that a clearance of 9.1 m is required and the cars have a height of 7m, the total height of the pylons must be 26 meters.

The difficulty for the stations on either end of the river lie within the available space to construct these, figure 5.5 shows that, on that side of the river, the available space is limited by roads, parks, buildings and tracks for the cities trams. Figure 5.4 shows that the only available space is on the grass of the Azartplein so a pylon can be build on the bank of the river to make sure the height requirements are met. On this side of the river IJ, the possibil-ities for a storage and maintance facility are very limited. Therefore these should be located on the north side of the river. On the north side, as seen in figure 5.6, lie more possibilities for a station, a storage and maintenance facility, but still due to safety regulations, the city of Amsterdam should allocate a piece of land for this purpose.

For the location of the pylons either room should be made on the banks of the IJ, or their foundation should be made in the river at such a location that traffic on the river is not

(36)

Figure 5.4. Azartplein and Sumatrakade

affected. These pylons should be capable to hold the weight of the cable and all the cars combined, and withstand the tension held on the cable.

Figure 5.5. Area for the station on the Azartplein Figure 5.6. Area for the station at the Johan van Hasselt

Figure 5.7 shows a pylon build on the banks of the Rhine river in Koblenz to support the weight and tensions of the Rheinseilbahn. This pylon was build on four legs and people are allowed to walk underneath them. If the pylons are constructed in this way, the existing traffic situation will experience minimal inconvenience so minimal changes in the current situation are needed.

(37)

Figure 5.7. A pylon constructed

5.3 Design

This section covers both the Multi Criteria Analysis which will show which mode of transport fits the requirements the most and will then look into the proposed design with more depth.

5.3.1 Multi Criteria Analysis

For the design a Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) was made using the requirements described in section 2.6. These requirements were:

• Be build with the minimum amount of hindrance for the traffic on the river IJ

Five of these are used for the MCA, as all alternatives described in chapter 3 can follow the same route as the Oostveer ferry.

Each of the remaining five criteria are rated against each other which gives them a relative Walter Romijn Amsterdam Urban Aerial Cable Car 33

(38)

Chapter 5. Aerial cable car in Amsterdam Criteria # XXXX XX XX_X X Criteria number 1 2 3 4 5 Relative Impor-tance 1 Bicycles 1 1₄ 1₅ 1₂ 1₃ 0.062 2 Height 4 1 1 2 3 2 0.262 3 Capacity 5 2 1 4 3 0.416 4 Cost 2 1₃ 1₄ 1 1₂ 0.099 5 Hindrance 3 1₂ 1₃ 2 1 0,161 Total 15 4.08 2.28 10.5 6.83 1

Table 5.1. Weight Factors

Criteria ``````_``

``_``

Weight

Alternative

Monocable Bicable Tricable Aerial Tram Monorail Funicular Bicycles 0.062 1 2 3 4 6 5 Height 0.262 6 5 5 5 1 2 Capacity 0.416 1 2 6 3 5 4 Cost 0.099 6 4 5 3 1 2 Hindrance 0.161 3 4 6 5 2 1 Total 3.12 3.30 5.45 3.91 3.14 2.86

Table 5.2. Multi Criteria Analysis

importance, this is shown in table 5.1. Each alternative is then rated from 1 to 6 on each of the five criteria, were six shows the alternative fits the requirement the most and one the least. After which table 5.2 show which alternative has the highest overall score.

Bicycles

The monorail scores highest for this requirement as a monorail train has the most available space for bicycles and it stops on the platforms so entering is fairly easy. The monocable scores lowest as it has the least room of all alternatives and therefore carrying bicycles will lower the capacity considerably.

Height

Here the monocable gondola scores highest as it requires the least amount of material at altitude. The monorail scores lowest as this alternative is uncapable of climbing steep inclines and therefore requires a considerable amount of infrastructure.

(39)

Capacity

The tricable gondola scores highest here, as its capacity is closest to the requirement. The monorail and funicalar both have higher capacities but these are not able to scale with the demand, which the tricable does. The monocable scores the lowest as this gondola only reaches half of the required capacity.

Cost

Since the monocable gondola has the lowest cost, it scores highest in this category. Table 3.3 shows that the funicular comes close to these costs, this is however for a funicular running up the slope of a hill or mountain, for this project it will require a considerable increase in infrastructure and therefore it scores the second lowest place. The monorail is lowest as this is a very expensive solution.

Hindrance

Here the tricable gondola scores highest as it is able to cross the river without any infras-tructure requires other than on the banks. Thanks to this property it is possible to construct most of the system without hindring the traffic on the river. The funicular scores lowest as this solution requires train tracks being constructed over the river with a large number of pylons in the water. The monorail scores slightly better as this only needs a single rail.

Overall

The tricable gondola scores highest overall with a total of 5.45. Therefore this is chosen as the proposed solution for the Amsterdam Oostveer trajectory.

5.3.2 Tricable Gondola

As shown in figure 5.2 the distance that needs to be spanned is 941.56 m with a height clearance of 9.1 m. Taking into account room to climb to the required height and the stations, which can be seen in figure 5.8, the total length of the system will be 1.06 km from one end to the other. This leads to a cable length of 2.12 km. With a seperation of 100 m between the cars, a total number of 21 cars can be used. If these cars have a capacity of 35 passengers per car, the line speed must be 20.5 km/h to have a system capacity of 3,700 PPHPD. Thanks to the de-clutching mechanism cars can easily be taken out of the system to scale the system capacity with the current demand.

(40)

(41)

Chapter 6

Conclusion

The system that is to be designed for the connection between the south and north sides of Amsterdam has to meet the following requirements:

• Be build with the minimum amount of hindrance for the traffic on the river IJ

When looking at the alternatives and keeping in mind that the city of Amsterdam wants a solution that is easily implemented and with the least amount of inconvenience, it is clear that the suspended people movers are favored over the bottom supported modes of transport. Then by looking at the capacity the gondola comes out on top, as this has higher capacity and less waiting times. Within the gondolas the tricable is the best solution, as the cost are comparable with the cost of a bicable system but the possible distance between the pylons is much larger.

The distance that needs to be spanned is 941.56 m with a height clearance of 9.1 m. Taking into account room to climb to the required height and the stations, the total length of the system will be 1.06 km from one end to the other. This leads to a cable length of 2.12 km. With a seperation of 100 m between the cars, a total number of 21 cars can be used. If these cars have a capacity of 35 passengers per car, the line speed must be 20.5 km/h to have a

(42)

Chapter 6. Conclusion

system capacity of 3,700 PPHPD. Thanks to the de-clutching mechanism cars can easily be taken out of the system to scale the system capacity with the current demand.

The tricable gondola meets all of the requirements as it has the possibility to transport bicycles, it can give a clearance of 9.1m above the water level, it follows the trajectory of the Oostveer ferry, has a capacity of 3,700 PPHPD which can be scaled down by removing cars from the system, is not the most expensive solution and it will not need the construction of any infrastructure in the river IJ.

(43)

Bibliography

Alshalalfah, B., Shalaby, A., and Dale, S. (2013). Experiences with aerial ropeway transportation systems in the urban environment. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 140(1):04013001.

Brand, P. and D´avila, J. D. (2011). Aerial cable-car systems for public transport in low-income urban areas: lessons from medellin, colombia.

Dale, S. (2010a). Aerial technologies, lesson 2: Mdg. http://gondolaproject.com/2010/01/24/ technologies-module-2-mdg/ Retrieved Juli 2015.

Dale, S. (2010b). Aerial technologies, lesson 3: Bdg. http://gondolaproject.com/2010/02/01/ technologies-module-3-bdg/ Retrieved Juli 2015.

Dale, S. (2010c). Aerial technologies, lesson 5: Aerial trams. http://gondolaproject.com/2010/04/24/ technologies-module-5-aerial-trams/ Retrieved Juli 2015.

Dale, S. (2010d). Aerial technologies, lesson 7: 3s. http://gondolaproject.com/2010/06/16/ aerial-technologies-lesson-7-3s/ Retrieved Juli 2015.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2014). Resultaten evaluatie oostveer. https://www.amsterdam.nl/ parkeren-verkeer/nieuws-onderdelen/nieuws-veren/resultaten-evaluatie/ Retrieved Juli 2015. Groenewegen, G. (2014). Evaluatie proef oostveer.

GVB (2015). Dienstregeling Oostveer. http://www.gvb.nl/lijn/veerboot/915 Retrieved Juli 2015.

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (2001). Detailed proposals for the tung chung cable car project invited. http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200104/24/0424222.htm Retrieved Juli 2015.

Koblenz-Touristik (2010). Ropeway Preview 2010 Koblenz.

Marocchi, A. (2011). Cableways for urban transportation: History, state of the art and future developments. Neumann, E. S. (1999). The past, present, and future of urban cable propelled people movers. Journal of

advanced transportation, 33(1):51–82.

Portland Aerial Tram. Portland aerial tram website. http://www.gobytram.com/ Retrieved Juli 2015. Rhein-Zeitung (2011). Unesco: Buga-seilbahn schadet welterbe nicht. http://www.rhein-zeitung.

de/ Retrieved Juli 2015.

Seilbahn Koblenz (2011). The cable car in figures. http://www.seilbahn-koblenz.de/ the-cable-car-in-figures.html Retrieved Juli 2015.

The Monorail society. The basics. http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/Why.html Retrieved Juli 2015. United States Steel (1968). Wire Rope Engineering Handbook. Tiger Brand.

(44)

(45)

Appendix A

On July 15th, 2015 I send a data request to Rijkswaterstaat (RWS), the Dutch Department of Waterways and Public Works, regarding the minimal required clearance for constructions over the river IJ.

On July 24th, 2015 I received a response with the following information: • The regular water level in the river IJ is NAP -40 cm

• The minimum level is NAP -60 cm • The maximum level is NAP -20 cm

• At all times a ship with a height of 910 cm should be able to pass the construction, therefore the minimum height of the bottom of the cable car should be at NAP + 890 cm.

(46)

Appendix B

For a growth in passengers of 6.5% per year the following numbers of passengers per day were found in table B.1

Year Passengers per day peak capacity

2014 1,572 1,022 2015 1,674 1,088 2016 1,783 1,159 2017 1,899 1,235 2018 2,022 1,315 2019 2,154 1,400 2020 2,294 1,491 2021 2,443 1,588 2022 2,602 1,691 2023 2,771 1,801 2024 2,951 1,918 2024 3,143 2,044 2025 3,348 2,176

(47)

Appendix C

The following values were used: • a = 100 m • b = 9·8 2 = 36 • c = 4·3 2 = 6 • G = 3,500 kg • m = 70.78 m • n = 9 • s = 941.56 m • u = 4 • w = 32.54 kg/m • x = 470.78 m • y = 10 m z = x(n − u) − m xn s − u − a bx s − c z = 918.51 t = 2Gz + wx(s − x) 2y t = 682, 076.7kg 43

Amsterdam Urban Aerial Cable Car; Stedelijke kabelbaan in Amsterdam

Amsterdam Urban Aerial Cable Car

Walter Romijn

1359487

A literature study

Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Symbols

Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 2

Requirements for the city of

Amsterdam

2.1

Bicycles

2.2

Height

2.3

Oostveer trajectory

2.4

Capacity

2.5

Cost and polution

2.6

Conclusion

Chapter 3

Alternatives

3.1

Suspended people movers

3.2

Bottom supported people movers

3.3

Summary of alternatives

Chapter 4

History of the urban aerial cable

car

4.1

Metrocable, Medellin in Colombia

4.2

Polinka, Wroclaw in Poland

4.3

Aerial Tram, Portland in Oregon

4.4

Ngong Ping Cable Car 360 in Hong Kong

4.5

Rheinseilbahn, Koblenz in Germany

Ropeway Preview

2010 Koblenz

Bottom station Doppelmayr ropeway at the Konrad Adenauer

embankment

Koblenz-Touristik, T +49 261 31 304,

F +49 261 10 04 388, info-hbf@koblenz-touristik.de

Bundesgartenschau Koblenz 2011 GmbH

Kastorpfaffenstr. 21, D-56068 Koblenz

T +49 261 702011, F+49 261 70201-090

info@buga2011.de, www.buga2011.de

Ropeway Preview

2010 Koblenz

Bottom station Doppelmayr ropeway at the Konrad Adenauer

embankment

Koblenz-Touristik, T +49 261 31 304,

F +49 261 10 04 388, info-hbf@koblenz-touristik.de

Bundesgartenschau Koblenz 2011 GmbH

Kastorpfaffenstr. 21, D-56068 Koblenz

T +49 261 702011, F+49 261 70201-090

info@buga2011.de, www.buga2011.de

4.6

Service Characteristics

Chapter 5

Aerial cable car in Amsterdam

5.1

Trajectory

5.2

Difficulties

5.3

Design

Chapter 6

Conclusion

Bibliography