Laguna Honda Gondola Feasibility Study

The Laguna Honda Gondola Feasibility Study evaluates whether an aerial gondola could provide a safe, ADA-accessible, and reliable connection between the Forest Hill Muni Metro Station (Station) and the Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center (Hospital) which is being planned for future residential development. Today, steep topography, an indirect ADA accessible pedestrian route, and traffic volumes on Laguna Honda Boulevard create significant barriers for hospital staff, residents, patients, and visitors traveling between these two sites. This study was initiated at the request of Transportation Authority Chair and District 7 Commissioner Myrna Melgar to help assess mobility options to support future development.

To assess the viability of a gondola connection, the study team analyzed existing conditions that include a shuttle service provided and supported by the Hospital (with monthly ridership of ~2,500), reviewed precedent systems from elsewhere, considered future travel demand, and developed and compared six potential alignment alternatives. The feasibility analysis incorporated site visits; collision, transit, and shuttle ridership data; hospital growth plans; and information about historic resources.

1.1 Demand Analysis

For the demand analysis, the study team used Replica, an activity-based travel demand platform that applies a disaggregate travel forecasting framework to simulate individual and household daily activity patterns and derive resulting travel behavior from large-scale anonymized mobility data. The study team evaluated existing and future demand scenarios derived from transit and walking trips. The resulting potential demand is approximately 135 – 270 average weekday trips today, increasing to approximately 195 – 390 trips by 2030 with planned development on the Hospital campus. Approximately 70% of this demand is associated with the Hospital Pavilion Building, where most residents and staff are located and an additional 460 staff are expected to be located.

1.2 Alignment Evaluation

Six alignment alternatives were developed based on potential launch points near the Station and potential landing points at the Hospital. Alternatives were evaluated for constructability, utility conflicts, environmental constraints, accessibility, and ability to serve primary demand. The analysis identified an alignment serving the Hospital Pavilion Building as the most feasible option, offering the best balance of demand served, constructability, and minimizing conflicts with utilities, trees, and historic resources.

1.3 Cost Assessment

The study team developed rough order-of-magnitude cost estimates, informed by two ropeway manufacturers and civil infrastructure assumptions. The analysis estimates a total implementation cost of approximately $23 million in year of expenditure dollars, which is assumed to be 2028 for soft costs and 2030 for capital costs, with annual operations and maintenance costs of approximately $2 million per year, including an on-board attendant on the gondola, for 10 years, starting in 2030.

1.4 Shuttle comparative analysis

The current shuttle services have an annual cost of $300,000. Comparative analysis of the gondola system and shuttle alternative yielded the following findings:

• Cost: The gondola option carries a significant cost premium — estimated at ~7x over a 20 year lifecycle — compared with a shuttle service.
• Capacity: While a gondola would provide twice the capacity of the shuttle, the shuttle service would generally have adequate capacity to serve future demand growth scenarios resulting from planned Hospital growth. Peak hour conditions under the higher-growth scenario or additional non-Hospital trip growth may strain shuttle capacity and warrant additional demand management strategies (e.g. carpool incentives) or shuttle services.
• Service coverage: The shuttle provides door-to-door service to multiple buildings. The gondola drops passengers at the end of the hospital steps, requiring an additional walk to reach individual buildings.
• Frequency: The gondola’s five-minute cycle compares favorably to the shuttle’s 15- to 20-minute cycle. However, gondola walk times to final destinations might make total times closer to equal.

1.5 Key Findings

• A gondola connection is technically feasible and could provide a fully accessible, grade-separated link between the Station and Hospital.
• The most feasible alignment minimizes utility conflicts and directly serves the Pavilion Building, the Hospital’s highest-demand destination.
• Travel demand is driven primarily by growth in anticipated Hospital staff and residents. There is some potential for induced gondola demand from non-Hospital trips (serving nearby neighborhoods or Twin Peaks scenic areas), which this study did not assess.
• Capital and operating costs are significant for serving projected ridership with a gondola, in comparison with lower-cost mobility services such as shuttles and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies.
• While a gondola would provide significantly more capacity, a shuttle system would generally have the ability to serve planned Hospital trip growth more cost effectively, though peak-hour conditions or additional non-Hospital trip growth may warrant additional demand management strategies (e.g. carpool incentives) or shuttle services.
• The study’s documentation of key gondola design parameters, planning factors and lifecycle costs can inform longer-distance gondola systems planning, if applicable elsewhere in the future.

1.6 Hospital and mobility program Outreach

Given the technical nature of this study, the main outreach tasks were limited to consulting hospital administrators, shuttle service providers and transportation staff at partner agencies. The study team also conducted cost research with gondola suppliers.

1.7 Conclusion

Following development of the gondola alignment and system concept, demand projections and capital and operating cost estimates and a conceptual evaluation of the shuttle alternative, the study team concludes that the gondola is a less cost-effective solution than developing shuttle and TDM strategies, and does not recommend further study of a gondola concept for the Laguna Honda site.

While the Study confirms that a gondola system is technically feasible, its relatively high capital and operating costs for the short distance at this location makes alternative mobility solutions — such as enhanced shuttle service paired with effective demand management programs — the more cost-effective approach to supporting future growth at the Laguna Hospital and residential development sites at this time.

While a gondola would provide twice or more the capacity of the shuttle, the shuttle service would generally have adequate capacity to serve future demand growth scenarios resulting from planned Hospital growth. Peak hour conditions under the higher-growth scenario or additional non-Hospital trip growth may strain shuttle capacity and warrant additional demand management strategies (e.g. carpool incentives) or shuttle services.

The purpose of this Laguna Honda Gondola Feasibility Study is to explore the feasibility of an aerial gondola system as a potential way to enhance ADA access and improve first- and last-mile connectivity between the Forest Hill Muni Metro Station (Station) and Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center (Hospital) in the Forest Hill neighborhood of San Francisco, supporting current demand and future residents and visitors as anticipated with planned growth. The proposed gondola would connect the Station — a key transit hub — with the Hospital, addressing significant accessibility challenges created by steep topography and the heavily trafficked Laguna Honda Boulevard.

In addition to serving hospital staff, patients, and visitors, the gondola could improve access to the proposed affordable senior housing development at the Laguna Honda Hospital Campus Replacement Lot (Campus Replacement Lot Project) and 460 additional hospital staff. The Study Area includes both the Hospital parcel and the Station parcel (Figure 2-1). Figure 2-2 illustrates future land use, including the Campus Replacement Lot Project.

This Study provides a planning level evaluation of a proposed gondola system. The study team identified key constraints, opportunities, benefits, and costs associated with a gondola system. We conducted a market assessment to estimate demand, evaluated alignment alternatives to determine the most feasible option based on mobility needs and site constraints, developed conceptual horizontal and vertical alignments for the most feasible alternative, and incorporated cost estimates from two ropeway suppliers.

Several aerial gondola and ropeway systems operate in urban environments worldwide to address steep terrain, physical barriers, and first- and last-mile connectivity. As part of this Study, we reviewed the following precedent projects to understand how similar systems function in practice, including system length, vertical rise, connectivity to transit, operational characteristics, and costs, the details of which are provided in Appendix A:

• Portland Aerial Tram, Portland, OR
• Hillavator Funicular, Capitola, CA
• Gondolita, Taos, NM
• Numerica SkyRide, Spokane, WA
• Grenoble Bastille, Grenoble, France
• Mexico City Cablebús, Mexico City, Mexico
• Metrocable, Medellín, Colombia

These precedent systems highlight both transportation-focused systems and smaller-scale applications relevant to the Study context and demonstrate that gondolas can function either as localized access solutions or as integrated components of a broader transit network, depending on system scale, alignment, and connectivity.

4.1 Site Visit

On April 23, 2025, the study team conducted a site visit of the Study Area with Transportation Authority and San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH) staff. The study team documented existing pedestrian pathways, site grading, and general site characteristics. Figure 4-1 includes photographs from the site visit.

4.2 Planning Data

The Team collected data from a variety of sources to document the Study Area’s collision history, travel patterns, and hospital staffing. The Team considered the following data to understand existing conditions:

• 10-year collision data
• Existing shuttle service data
• SFMTA ridership data for the Station
• Hospital occupancy data
• Replica data

Collision Data

The Team collected collision data from the City of San Francisco’s Open Data portal for a 10-year period from 2015 – 2024. The analysis identified 12 collisions within the Study Area, including six collisions involving cyclists or pedestrians. Of the 12 crashes, one involving two vehicles resulted in a severe injury. Figure 4-2 maps Study Area crashes by mode and severity.

Shuttle Data

Laguna Honda Hospital and TransMetro currently operate weekday shuttle service between the Hospital and Station. SFDPH provided ridership data showing average monthly ridership (April 2025 – June 2025) of 719 for the TransMetro shuttle and 1,745 for the Laguna Honda Hospital shuttle.

SFMTA Ridership Data

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) provided transit ridership data for the Station, which the K, L, and M Muni lines serve. SFMTA also provided ridership data for the bus stops adjacent to the Station served by routes 36, 43, 44, and 52. The data included inbound and outbound boardings and alightings.

The data provided included both trips that begin or end in the Study Area as well as transfer trips at the Station. Transfer trips (e.g.: between Muni lines or between a bus and Muni line) are counted twice — as an alighting from one service and a boarding of another service.

Hospital Occupancy Data

SFDPH provided the number of residents and employees in each Hospital building for May 2025, along with the number of visitors to the Hospital during July 2025. Table 4-2 summarizes the number of residents, staff, and visitors.

Replica Data

The Team used Replica, an activity-based travel demand model, to analyze trips with an origin or destination within the Study Area, defined as the Laguna Honda Hospital parcel and Forest Hill Muni Station parcel shown in Figure 2-1. Trips that merely pass through the Study Area without beginning or ending within the Study Area were excluded from the analysis. A ‘trip’ is defined as “a movement by a person between places. A trip begins when a person leaves a place and ends when a person stops to do a non-travel activity in a place.”Defined from Replica’s methodology The model estimates approximately 6,200 daily trips to and from the Study Area. Replica data indicates that 60% of trips (3,719 trips) occur within San Francisco, primarily to and from areas north of the Study Area.

In addition to the number of trips taken to and from the Study Area, Replica was used to estimate the number of people traveling to and from the Study Area. The model estimates approximately 1,660 people arriving and 2,110 people departing the Study Area on a typical weekday.

Replica also shows that peak walking and transit activity occurs between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. when approximately 10% of daily walking and transit trips take place. Figure 4-3 shows the percentage of trips by mode and Figure 4-4 shows trip distribution by time of day.

The Team used Replica data to estimate potential gondola demand, as described in Section 5.

Download chart data (CSV)

Download chart data (CSV)

4.3 Existing Conditions Map

The Team created a site map to document key features of the Study Area based on the site visit and existing conditions analysis. Figure 4-5 shows both the ADA accessible route between the Station and Hospital (in green) and a more direct route with stairs (in red). The ADA accessible route is approximately 100 feet longer than the route with stairs.

Other key features shown on the map include:

• Identification of the two Hospital buildings, the Pavilion Building and the Administrative Building
• The site for the Campus Replacement Lot Project
• A steep hillside and mature grove of trees west of the Pavilion Building
• The four lane Laguna Honda Boulevard arterial separating the Station and Hospital, and
• Bus stops in front of the Station on either side of Laguna Honda Boulevard.

4.4 Opportunities and Constraints

The Team identified key physical, operational, and regulatory factors that could influence the feasibility of a gondola connection between the Station and Hospital. Building on the existing conditions analysis and site visit observations, the Team evaluated topography, utilities, roadway conditions, historic resources, and pedestrian access within the Study Area. This assessment identified locations where a gondola alignment may be feasible and areas where design, permitting, or cost challenges may arise.

The following maps and descriptions summarize the primary opportunities and constraints that informed the development and evaluation of the alignment alternatives.

• The hillside between the Station and Hospital exceeds a 20% slope and includes a significant grove of mature trees. This topography creates a strong need to improve ADA connectivity.
• Laguna Honda Boulevard carries high traffic volumes and has a history of collisions. A gondola could improve safe and accessible crossings of Laguna Honda Boulevard.
• The Station is a locally designated landmark with a community park located behind the Station building. These constraints limit opportunities to locate a gondola terminal directly at the Station.
• Overhead utilities, including PG&E high voltage lines, are located within the Study Area. Relocating or undergrounding these facilities for a gondola alignment may be cost prohibitive and could increase capital costs for some alignment alternatives.

As part of the Study, the Team conducted a Market Assessment to evaluate potential demand for a gondola system. The Market Assessment considered both existing and future demand (2035 for sketch/feasibility planning purposes), with existing demand driven by current hospital staff, residents, and visitors and future demand driven by projected growth in Hospital staffing and planned developments. The Team identified the potential market for the gondola system to inform key decisions related to alignment alternatives, system capacity, and project viability.

Existing demand and future demand were estimated using different but complementary data sources. Existing demand was estimated using Replica travel demand data because it reflects observed travel patterns to and from the Study Area. Future demand was estimated using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation methodologies because future land uses and staffing increases do not yet exist and therefore cannot be represented in Replica. The future demand analysis applies the same transit and walking travel patterns observed in Replica to the additional trips generated by planned development and staffing growth.

Using Replica data introduced in Section 4.2, the Team estimated both the number of vehicle and person trips and the number of people traveling to and from the Study Area by mode, where transit and walking trips accounted for 22% of all trips. The Team evaluated two scenarios — an existing demand scenario assumes that approximately 10% of transit and walking trips would use the gondola, reflecting current shuttle ridership patterns.

Based on this methodology, the Team estimated existing demand at approximately 134. This corresponds to the current weekday shuttle ridership.

Future demand was estimated by applying 10% and 20% shares to future transit/walking trips, where overall future travel demand was estimated by first identifying planned developments and staffing increases at the Hospital. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) was then used to estimate the additional daily trips generated by these future land uses. The analysis estimated approximately 2,768 additional daily trips associated with the Campus Replacement Lot Project and increased hospital staffing after removing land uses not expected to generate meaningful gondola demand. The transit and walking mode shares observed in Replica (9% transit and 13% walking) were applied to these additional trips, resulting in approximately 609 additional transit and walking trips. Finally, the gondola captures an estimated 61 to 122 trips per weekday. Adding these trips to the existing demand results in a future demand estimate of approximately 195 to 391 weekday gondola trips. Of these, approximately 10% (20 to 39 trips) would occur during the peak hour.

Using Hospital occupancy data provided by SFDPH, the Team distributed estimated gondola trips between the Pavilion and Administrative Buildings. This analysis indicated that approximately 70% of trips would serve the Pavilion Building and 30% would serve the Administrative Building, reflecting the distribution of residents and staff across the Hospital campus.

The demand estimation process is summarized below and the results are provided in Table 5-1. For full analysis description and results, the Market Assessment is included in Appendix B.

1. Replica travel demand data was used to estimate the total number of trips to and from the Study Area.
2. Walking and transit trips were identified as the primary market for a gondola connection between Forest Hill Muni Station and Laguna Honda Hospital.
3. 10% existing gondola usage scenario was evaluated
4. Existing demand is estimated by multiplying the Replica walking and transit trips by 10%
5. Trips generated by future development and hospital staffing growth were calculated using ITE trip generation manual.
6. Existing travel patterns and potential higher gondola usage assumptions were applied to future trips to estimate future gondola demand
7. Future demand is estimated by multiplying the additional ITE trips by 22% (to capture only walking and transit trips) and then by 10% and 20% and finally adding the additional trips to the existing demand calculated in step 4 above.

This Section describes the alignment alternatives considered for a potential gondola system between the Station and the Hospital. The Team developed six alternatives and evaluated them based on key considerations, including utility conflicts, ability to serve primary demand, site constraints, environmental impacts, and access and circulation. Table 6-1 summarizes how each alternative performs across these criteria and informs the identification of the most feasible option.

6.1 Alternative 1A: Station to Administrative Building

In Alternative 1A, shown in Figure 6-1, the proposed launch point for the gondola is adjacent to the Station and the terminus is located at the Hospital Administrative Building. This alternative also provides the opportunity to extend to the Hospital Pavilion Building.

Key considerations include:

• Demand served: This alignment primarily serves the Hospital Administrative Building, which has lower demand compared to the Pavilion Building where the majority of residents and staff are located.
• Utility conflicts: The alignment likely conflicts with existing overhead utilities along Laguna Honda Boulevard, including PG&E distribution lines, which could require relocation or undergrounding and significantly increase project costs.
• Space/constructability: The constrained right-of-way and surrounding park space near the Station may limit the available footprint for a gondola terminal and associated passenger facilities.
• Environmental/site impacts: The Station is a locally designated landmark and is adjacent to a community park, limiting opportunities to construct a gondola launch facility directly adjacent to the Station.
• Access and circulation: Passengers traveling to the Pavilion Building, or other Hospital destinations, would need to walk additional distances within the Hospital campus. Additionally, as the gondola’s landing site at the Administrative Building is not adjacent to the existing ADA pathway, a new ADA connection may be needed.

6.2 Alternative 1B: Station to Pavilion Building

Alternative 1B, shown in Figure 6-2, is similar to Alternative 1A, however the gondola directly serves the Hospital Pavilion Building, for which there is more demand.

Key considerations include:

• Demand served: This alignment directly serves the Pavilion Building, where the majority of Hospital residents and staff are located, improving overall accessibility.
• Utility conflicts: Existing overhead utilities along Laguna Honda Boulevard could require relocation or undergrounding to accommodate the gondola alignment.
• Space/constructability: The limited space surrounding the Station may make it challenging to accommodate the necessary terminal footprint and passenger circulation areas.
• Environmental/site impacts: Similar to Alternative 1A, this alignment would require locating a gondola terminal adjacent to the historic Station and community park, which may limit design options and require additional review. The alignment would also cross an area with a grove of mature trees, which could require tree removal, pruning, or ongoing vegetation management to maintain required clearances.

6.3 Alternative 2A: Woodside to Administrative Building

Alternative 2A, shown in Figure 6-3, has a launch point near Woodside Avenue, across Laguna Honda Boulevard from the Station. With this launch point, utility impacts adjacent to the Station are avoided, and access across Laguna Honda Boulevard is facilitated with an overhead bridge connecting the Station to the launch point. The terminus for this alternative is the Hospital Administrative Building, and like Alternative 1A, this alternative provides the opportunity to extend to the Hospital Pavilion Building.

Key considerations include:

• Demand served: The alignment terminates at the Hospital Administrative Building rather than the Pavilion Building, which has lower overall demand.
• Utility conflicts: This alignment limits impacts to utilities along Laguna Honda Boulevard.
• Space/constructability: Locating the launch point across Laguna Honda Boulevard from the Station avoids direct impacts to the historic Station building and adjacent park.
• Environmental/site impacts: The need for a pedestrian bridge or similar crossing structure could increase project costs and complexity.
• Access and circulation: An overhead pedestrian bridge or other connection would be needed to provide safe and ADA accessible access between the Station and the gondola launch point. As with Alternative 1A, passengers traveling to the Pavilion Building or other hospital destinations would need to walk additional distances within the Hospital campus. Additionally, as the gondola’s landing site at the Administrative Building is not adjacent to the existing ADA pathway, a new ADA connection may be needed.

6.4 Alternative 2B: Trailhead to Administrative Building

The launch point for Alternative 2B, shown in Figure 6-4, is at the Hospital Trail Access Point across Laguna Honda Boulevard from the Station. This launch point avoids utility impacts but requires pedestrians to use the existing crossing in front of the Station to cross Laguna Honda Boulevard. Like other alternatives, Alternative 2B serves the Hospital Administrative Building, for which there is less demand, but provides the opportunity to extend to the Hospital Pavilion Building.

Key considerations include:

• Demand served: As with other alternatives terminating at the Hospital Administrative Building, this option does not directly serve the Pavilion Building where demand is higher.
• Utility conflicts: The launch location near the existing trailhead avoids direct conflicts with utilities along Laguna Honda Boulevard.
• Space/constructability: Locating the launch point across Laguna Honda Boulevard from the Station avoids direct impacts to the historic Station building and adjacent park.
• Environmental/site impacts?
• Access/circulation: Users would need to cross Laguna Honda Boulevard at the existing crosswalk in front of the Station. Like other alternatives, passengers traveling to the Pavilion Building or other Hospital destinations would need to walk additional distances within the Hospital campus. Additionally, as the gondola’s landing site at the Administrative Building is not adjacent to the existing ADA pathway, a new ADA connection may be needed.

6.5 Alternative 2C: Trailhead to Pavilion Building

Alternative 2C, shown in Figure 6-5, is similar to Alternative 2B, however the gondola directly serves the Hospital Pavilion Building, for which there is more demand. Due to the similar launch point as Alternative 2B, across Laguna Honda Boulevard from the Station, this alternative avoids utility conflicts but requires pedestrians to cross Laguna Honda Boulevard via the existing crosswalk in front of the Station.

Key considerations include:

• Demand served: This alignment directly serves the Hospital Pavilion Building, which accounts for the majority of demand (~70% of trips).
• Utility conflicts: The launch location across Laguna Honda Boulevard reduces potential conflicts with overhead utilities along Laguna Honda Boulevard.
• Space/constructability: Locating the launch point across Laguna Honda Boulevard from the Station avoids direct impacts to the historic Station building and adjacent park.
• Environmental/site impacts: The alignment would cross an area with a grove of mature trees, which could require tree removal, pruning, or ongoing vegetation management to maintain required clearances.
• Access and circulation: Passengers would need to cross Laguna Honda Boulevard using the existing crosswalk.

6.6 Alternative 2D: Launch at Bus Stop

Alternative 2D, shown in Figure 6-6, is similar to Alternative 2C, however the launch point is located at the existing bus stop across from the Station instead of the Hospital Trail Access Point. This alternative avoids utility conflicts but requires pedestrians to cross Laguna Honda Boulevard via the existing crosswalk in front of the Station. This alternative serves the Hospital Pavilion Building only.

Key considerations include:

• Demand served: This alignment serves the Hospital Pavilion Building which has the greatest demand.
• Utility conflicts: Locating the terminal across Laguna Honda Boulevard reduces potential impacts to utilities along Laguna Honda Boulevard.
• Space/constructability: The bus stop location may have limited space for a gondola terminal and associated passenger facilities.
• Environmental/site impacts: The alignment would cross an area with a grove of mature trees, which could require tree removal, pruning, or ongoing vegetation management to maintain required clearances
• Access and circulation: The launch point near the existing bus stop provides relatively close access to the Station and nearby transit services. Similar to Alternatives 2B and 2C, users would need to cross Laguna Honda Boulevard at the existing crosswalk.

6.7 Potential Future Extension

For each of the six alternatives, a future extension from the Hospital Pavilion Building to the new senior housing development planned as part of the Campus Replacement Lot Project was considered. The alignment for the possible future extension is shown in Figure 6-7.

6.8 Alignment Alternatives Evaluation Summary

The Team evaluated each alignment alternative based on key considerations, including demand served, utility conflicts, space and constructability, environmental and site impacts, and access and circulation. These considerations were applied consistently across all alternatives and reflect the primary factors influencing feasibility. Table 6-1 summarizes the relative performance of each alternative across these criteria.

As shown in Table 6-1, alternatives that directly serve the Pavilion Building and minimize utility conflicts and site constraints perform most favorably. Alternative 2C provides the best overall balance across these criteria.

The evaluation summarized in Table 6-1 identifies Alternative 2C as the most feasible alternative.

Alternative 2C provides the best overall balance across the evaluation criteria. This alignment directly serves the Hospital Pavilion Building, which accounts for the majority of demand, while avoiding major utility conflicts and minimizing constraints associated with the Station site. In addition, Alternative 2C does not require a pedestrian bridge or other major supporting infrastructure, improving overall constructability.

While Alternative 2C would require consideration of tree and vegetation impacts, these impacts are manageable compared to the utility, space, and access constraints associated with other alternatives. Alternatives that serve the Administrative Building do not align with the primary demand patterns identified in the Market Assessment, and alternatives that originate at or adjacent to the Station introduce significant constraints related to limited space and historic designation.

Based on these considerations, Alternative 2C represents the most feasible alignment to advance for further design and evaluation. See Figure 7-1, Figure 7-2, Figure 7-3, Figure 7-4, Figure 7-5 for discussion of detailed alternatives developed for analysis purposes. The Team developed two iterations of this alternative — a northern alignment (Figure 7-1) and a southern alignment (Figure 7-2). While Alternative 2C performs favorably across most evaluation criteria, the alignment crosses an area with a grove of mature trees. The Team developed the southern alignment to minimize these impacts while maintaining a direct and feasible connection within the identified site constraints. As a result, the southern alignment was advanced for further refinement, including horizontal (Figure 7-3) and vertical alignment (Figure 7-4 and Figure 7-5) development and cost estimation (Section 7.1).

7.1 Planning-Level Cost Estimates

The Study Team developed rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimates based on input from two ropeway system suppliers, Doppelmayr and Leitner Poma.

Doppelmayr provided a cost estimate that broke down capital costs into various categories including facility infrastructure and construction, civil construction for ropeway system, electro-mechanical ropeway equipment, and ropeway construction and commissioning costs. The cost estimate also included annual operations and maintenance costs for 365-day operation. Based on this estimate, the total capital cost for the most feasible alignment is $4.1 million with an additional up to $2 million needed annually for operations and maintenance. This includes 2 operators, 1 manager, and 1 maintenance technician.

Leitner Poma provided a cost estimate that included a single capital cost total for the entire system. This capital cost was estimated at $5.11 million. Leitner Poma also provided two operations and maintenance costs: one that includes supplier provided staff, maintenance, and additional parts, and one estimate for maintenance costs alone. The estimate for the full operations and maintenance contract was quoted at $614,000 per year and the maintenance only contract was quoted at $147,000 per year. This includes 2 operators.

The Team developed supplemental costs for infrastructure improvements not included in the ropeway system supplier estimates. These costs include infrastructure for the station boarding areas, such as boarding platforms, railings, lighting, control cabins, and other station amenities. The Team also developed costs related to intersection improvements along Laguna Honda Boulevard, including crosswalk treatments, new concrete flatwork and curb ramps, traffic signal modifications, and new street asphalt paving.

The Team combined the civil cost estimates with the supplier estimates to develop a final ROM cost estimate for the system. Table 7-1 summarizes the final ROM cost estimates for the system. These costs include contingency, escalation (assumed to be 7.5% over five years), and other soft costs such as design and permitting.

8.1 Introduction

This section assesses an alternative shuttle service designed to provide comparable mobility benefits as the proposed gondola. Notably, Laguna Honda Hospital already offers shuttle services from Monday to Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 5:50 p.m. between the Station and the Hospital. Accordingly, this analysis builds on a review of the existing services and potential adjustments needed to meet the projected growth scenarios.

8.2 Current Shuttle Service

Two entities operate the existing shuttle service under a split-schedule model:

• TransMetro operates the early-morning shift (6:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.), running every 15 minutes across five stops, including the Station and both Hospital Buildings.
• Laguna Honda Hospital operates the midday-to-evening shift (10:00 a.m. – 5:50 p.m.), running every 20 minutes across three stops, including the Station and both Hospital Buildings.

The shuttle provides door-to-door connectivity between the Station and all major Hospital Buildings, accommodating both ambulatory passengers and wheelchair users. The standard vehicle configuration includes 10 ambulatory seats and two wheelchair positions, for a total capacity of 12 passengers per trip.

8.3 Capacity

Current daily ridership on the shuttle services is approximately 125 passengers per day. The existing service has a theoretical daily capacity of 576 passengers (48 trips per day at 12 passengers per trip), indicating that the service currently operates well below maximum capacity. By comparison, a gondola would have twice the capacity of the shuttle system, serving 1150 passengers per day.

In peak-hour terms, the shuttle can accommodate up to 48 passengers per hour (four trips/hour × 12 passengers), with the ambulatory breakdown being 40 seats and eight wheelchair positions.

The Study’s demand projections for the gondola include two growth scenarios:

• 10% growth scenario — 195 daily passengers, and approximately 20 passengers in the peak hour.
• 20% growth scenario — 391 daily passengers, and approximately 39 passengers in the peak hour.

Under both scenarios, the existing single-vehicle shuttle service retains sufficient daily capacity to absorb projected ridership growth from the Hospital. This does not accounting for potential induced gondola demand from non-Hospital demand serving neighboring land uses (residential and Twin Peaks), which this study did not assess. However, the 20% scenario warrants closer attention at peak hours: if peak-hour demand is concentrated exclusively among ambulatory passengers, the load factor approaches or exceeds 0.9, indicating near-capacity conditions. This would likely necessitate scheduling adjustments or modest capacity additions during peak periods.

A Fehr & Peers Laguna Honda Hospital Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Report (2023) assessed existing travel conditions and recommended strategies to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips to the Hospital campus, and provides an important foundation to complement shuttle services going forward. This TDM plan could also be adjusted to balance travel demand across modes (e.g. promote SFMTA Essential Trip CardThe SFMTA Essential Trip Card (ETC) program, administered through SF Paratransit, provides subsidized taxi trips for adults 65+ and people with disabilities, who pay 20% of the regular fare for roughly two to three round trips per month. benefits or carpool incentives) as warranted.

8.4 Existing Shuttle Costs

The current annual operating cost for the shuttle service is $300,000 per year, which includes the TransMetro shuttle contract for $122,022, and the Laguna Honda Hospital service for $177,382 per year.

8.5 Comparative Analysis

The analysis highlights several data points that planning teams and decision-makers may weigh against each other:

Cost: A net present value analysis of the shuttle and gondola options over a 20-year horizon (3% real discount rate) suggests the gondola option would be significantly more costly than a shuttle service - up to 7x higher on a lifecycle basis.

Capacity: While a gondola would provide twice the capacity of the shuttle, the shuttle service would generally have adequate capacity to serve future demand growth scenarios resulting from planned Hospital growth. Peak hour conditions under the higher-growth scenario or additional non-Hospital trip growth may strain shuttle capacity and warrant additional demand management strategies (e.g. carpool incentives) or shuttle services.

Service coverage: The shuttle provides door-to-door service to multiple buildings. The gondola drops passengers at the end of the hospital steps, requiring an additional walk to reach individual buildings.

Frequency: The gondola’s 5-minute cycle compares favorably to the shuttle’s 15- to 20-minute cycle. However, gondola walk times to final destinations might make total times closer to equal.

Key study findings include:

• A gondola connection is technically feasible and could provide a fully accessible, grade-separated link between the Station and Hospital.
• The most feasible alignment minimizes utility conflicts and directly serves the Pavilion Building, the Hospital’s highest-demand destination.
• Travel demand is driven primarily by growth in anticipated Hospital staff and residents. There is some potential for induced gondola demand from non-Hospital trips (serving nearby neighborhoods or Twin Peaks scenic areas), which this study did not assess.
• Capital and operating costs are significant for serving projected ridership with a gondola, in comparison with lower-cost mobility services such as shuttles and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies.
• While a gondola would provide significantly more capacity, a shuttle system would generally have the ability to serve planned Hospital trip growth more cost effectively, though peak-hour conditions or additional non-Hospital trip growth may warrant additional demand management strategies (e.g. carpool incentives) or shuttle services.
• The study’s documentation of key gondola design parameters, planning factors and lifecycle costs can inform longer-distance gondola systems planning, if applicable elsewhere in the future.

In conclusion, following development of the gondola alignment and system concept, demand projections and capital and operating cost estimates and a conceptual evaluation of the shuttle alternative, the study team concludes that the gondola is a less cost-effective solution than developing shuttle and TDM strategies, and does not recommend further study of a gondola concept for the Laguna Honda site.

While the Study confirms that a gondola system is technically feasible, its relatively high capital and operating costs for the short distance at this location makes alternative mobility solutions — such as enhanced shuttle service paired with effective demand management programs — the more cost-effective approach to supporting future growth at the Laguna Hospital and residential development sites at this time.

The Laguna Honda Gondola Feasibility Study was funded through the San Francisco County Transportation Authority's Prop L Sales Tax Development Oriented Transportation program at the request of Transportation Authority Chair and District 7 Commissioner Myrna Melgar.

Project Team

San Francisco County Transportation Authority

• Carl Holmes, Deputy Director for Capital Projects
• Ahmed Thleiji, Rail Program Principal Engineer
• Stephen Chun, Director of Communications
• Andrew Heidel, Principal Transportation Planner
• Jean Paul Velez, Principal Transportation Planner
• Dan Tischler, Principal Transportation Modeler

San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH)

• Diltar Sidhu, Nursing Home Administrator and CEO
• Benito Olguin, Executive Project Manage
• Oleg Korsunsky,
  Director of Facilities and Capital Projects
• Jennifer Carton-Wade,
  Assistant Nursing Home Administrator, South Tower & Pavilion Mezzanine
• Ana Validzic, Acting Government Affairs Liaison

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

• Sarah Doggett, Program Coordinator
• Shimon Israel, Senior Transportation Planner

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)

• Steve Boland, Project Manager

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

• Vanessa Peers, Project Manager
• Edgar Torres, P.E. Principal
• Blake Silkwood, P.E. Project Engineer