Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 519

Thread: Gondolas across the River Valley as part of the LRT System

  1. #201
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,824

    Default

    At the moment, the Gondola concept is the winning selection of the Edmonton project. It was however, proposed last week by Councillor Tim Cartmell that a Gondola type system might be suitable for the Centre line.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  2. #202

    Default

    Just for clarification and knowing of terms. I keep reading these posts and keep seeing the word Tram and Gondola. Just to be certain to paint a more clear image, each of these are two different things.

    Aerial tramway/ Cable car
    An aerial tramway, cable car, ropeway or aerial tram is a type of aerial lift which uses one or two stationary ropes for support while a third moving rope provides propulsion. With this form of lift, the grip of an aerial tramway cabin is fixed onto the propulsion rope and cannot be decoupled from it during operations.


    Where as a gondola lift are often considered continuous systems since they feature a haul rope which continuously moves and circulates around two terminal stations. Depending on the combination of cables used for support and/or haulage and the type of grip (detachable grip vs. fixed grip), the capacity, cost, and functionality of a gondola lift will differ dramatically.


    I'm sure the cost are different for each system , so to come up and propose something to the city, I'd want to be specific on which system.
    I can't see a tram being functional for Edmonton.
    I can see a six to eight person gondola system work though. In the right places, and not throughout the whole city.
    Last edited by Brody; 17-03-2018 at 03:39 AM.

  3. #203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happydays View Post
    You guys are delusional who think that this could be built for the $50Mil range over that kind of span. Think hundreds of millions of $'s for this boondoggle........
    Only if they over design it to unrealistic specifications by an administration with no accountability on no understanding of the technology.

    You have to ask yourself why are there far more kilometers built every year of private gondola systems compared to LRT systems? Many ski hills, especially in Europe run only 4 months a year and only 8 or 10 hours a day and still are profitable. And even South American public gondolas run every day for much more hours and the fares are only 40 cents yes are also spectacularly popular and expanding rapidly. If both private and public entities can make gondolas work, should we not at least investigate the option rather than saying it is delusional?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 17-03-2018 at 06:42 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  4. #204

    Default

    A good read - best to just read the whole article.

    https://howwegettonext.com/cable-car...d-61f2b803c129



    “ “The blanket term we use for all the technologies collectively is ‘cable-propelled transit systems’ “. - see below


    Cable Cars Are Changing the World – How We Get To Next

    “...

    Researching the topic can be difficult, primarily because there are seemingly hundreds of different ways to refer to slight variations on the same basic principle. Spend 10 minutes looking into the subject and you’ll find people talking about gondolas, aerial tramways, ropeways, cableways, téléphériques, funiculars, funitels, inclined lifts, and many more.

    “That is actually one of the fundamental research problems that people encounter with the technology,” says urban planning consultant Steven Dale, founder of online cable car resource The Gondola Project, who has dedicated his career to the topic. “The blanket term we use for all the technologies collectively is ‘cable-propelled transit systems’: any system that is supported and propelled by a cable,” he adds.

    “There’s probably about a dozen different sub-branches, and those are things like an aerial tram or a jigback, or a pulse, or a mono cable, or a bi-cable. The word gondola is specific to the cabin, but it’s become a kind of catchall term to be used for the system as a whole, particularly in North America. Cable car is another catchall term. It actually technically refers to a very specific type of cable-propelled transit system, but it is so commonly used that we stopped fighting that battle a couple of years ago. We realized it was a pointless battle to fight.”

    ...”



    https://howwegettonext.com/cable-car...d-61f2b803c129



    Bolding mine


    Earlier I’d posted an interesting comment from this article, it discusses successes and failures (like London), and planners irrational and emotional fears such as of being ridiculed, etc
    Last edited by KC; 17-03-2018 at 07:01 AM.

  5. #205

    Default

    This was also interesting, incl the speed:


    “Ridership will be heavily weighted toward locals, who’ll outnumber the tourists at least 10 to one, but Jonsson says that the final numbers will be heavily dependent on how close they can get the cable car terminals to the tram stops. “If we get one and a half minute’s walk, it will be 5,000 [people per day],” he says. “If we have 30 seconds’ walk, it will be 13,000.”

    Most impressive of all, though, is the technology that will go into the cable car system itself. The Gothenburg scheme will run on three cables — two for support and one for pulling. That allows for up to almost a half-mile [one kilometer] between towers and exceptional wind stability. Traffic on the city’s bridges is limited at wind speeds of 49 m.p.h. [22 meters per second], but Gothenburg’s cable car should be able to operate safely at speeds of up to 60 m.p.h. [27 meters per second].
    ...”

    https://howwegettonext.com/cable-car...d-61f2b803c129

  6. #206

    Default

    Ski hills dont have to build transit system that are accessible to all, and already own/lease all the land required...

    Much the same discussion all over again as we had with prt...

  7. #207

    Default

    Accessibility simply isn’t a big problem to deal with.

    Routing is always the problem especially with new roads or rail (LRT) through existing neighbourhoods and districts. Cable towers would be a relative ‘walk in in the park’ except for clearances. Towers don’t even have to be big posts stuck in the middle of things. They can be frameworks straddling and not impairing existing walkways etc. Plus there is flexibility in moving them up and down along the line.

  8. #208

    Default

    In France, a Fix for the Urban Gondola's Privacy Problem

    FEARGUS O'SULLIVAN NOV 23, 2016

    https://www.citylab.com/solutions/20...rivacy/508592/

  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Ski hills dont have to build transit system that are accessible to all, and already own/lease all the land required...

    Much the same discussion all over again as we had with prt...
    Again, you have cheap myopic comments.

    We are talking proven urban transit projects. Medellin, Mexico City, La Paz and many other Cities are certainly not ski hills and have proven to be effective and popular transit options as we have already explained to you. Every 10 to 15 seconds there is a 100% handicapped accessible cabin that comes into the station that can also accept bicycles and SUV sized strollers easier than on the LRT where bicycles are banned during rush hours.

    You bring up PRT so I will bring up the NAIT line fiasco that cost $200M/km to build on level ground. Gondolas are a mature 100 year old technology that moves millions of people every day; effectively, efficiently and economically.


    Metrocable MGD Mariche–Tramo Expreso, Caracas, VEN

    https://sustainabledevelopment.un.or...38olivares.pdf

    Partial list of gondolas worldwide
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gondola_lifts

    As far as gondolas being handicapped accessible, even as close an Banff right here is this province the year round attraction is 100% accessible

    From their website FAQ

    Question: Is the Banff Gondola wheelchair accessible? What about strollers?

    Answer: Yes. The Banff Gondola facilities are wheelchair accessible and easily accessed by those who are elderly, families with children, or less mobile.

    We gladly provide handicapped parking within 30 meters of the entrance and ramp access into the building. All 4 levels within the summit complex are accessible by elevator. Seating can be found in all areas.

    The gondola cabins come off the track to load and unload passengers, allowing our guests as much time as they require to board. The gondolas can accommodate most standard-sized manual and motorized wheelchairs, walking frames, and assistance devices.
    So the handicapped issue is handled very well within any modern gondola lift system without stopping the line at all.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 17-03-2018 at 08:35 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    In France, a Fix for the Urban Gondola's Privacy Problem

    FEARGUS O'SULLIVAN NOV 23, 2016

    https://www.citylab.com/solutions/20...rivacy/508592/
    Oh, you mean Brest France has a gondola??? You mean the seaside port with no hills, no mountains and no ski hills???? How can that be?

    Maybe in Brest they have lots of favelas. LOL
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 17-03-2018 at 08:34 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  11. #211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    At the moment, the Gondola concept is the winning selection of the Edmonton project. It was however, proposed last week by Councillor Tim Cartmell that a Gondola type system might be suitable for the Centre line.
    It’s fun to think about but we all know it’s not going to happen. Not until they are pretty much widely accepted and proven in other cities that our people here can relate to, that is.


    A fun exercise learning about them.
    Last edited by KC; 17-03-2018 at 08:54 AM.

  12. #212

    Default

    Perhaps the gondolas can be combined with some of the other ideas: replace every other car with a sauna or a food truck. Or a ping-pong table.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  13. #213

    Default

    Mass transit modes are highly affected, not effected, by the masses’ “values mode”.


    Basically, the essence of people here today, settling here today, are not at all like the pioneering people that came here 100+ years ago and created this city. Even though they quickly replicated their old world remember that we had a funicular, steamboats, early adoption of electric lighting and took all kinds of other “risks”.

    Look around today, what colour is your SUV? White or black or what dull boring shade in between?




    Values Modes
    Excerpt:

    “Settlers are motivated by resources and by fear of perceived threats. They tend to be older, socially conservative and security conscious. They are often pessimistic about the future, and are driven by immediate, local issues affecting them and their family.”

    “A person's 'values group' can affect how they view most issues, from the environment[8] to taxation, immigration or economic and personal aspiration. Individuals with different values are said to perceive these issues differently, and are more amenable to certain changes.“

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values_Modes



    Podium: Pioneers, prospectors and settlers
    Excerpt:

    “We all have elements of each of these three visions, but one is likely to predominate. The first vision is that of the settler. The settler's fundamental needs are security and stability. This is achieved by high walls that keep out anything or anyone who is different, or threatening. Their paradise is full of "people like us'"and feels rather like Disneyland. They all follow the same set of rules. This includes being civil and respectful. Following rules gives them a sense of worth. They look to a higher authority to make the rules. They have a strong sense of nostalgia.”

    ...

    Finally, there are pioneers. The pioneer's fundamental needs are to stay on the move, enjoying the inner and outer journey. They continuously explore the new in the search for learning, enlightenment and...

    Settlers find pioneers even worse. The apparent chaos and the range of choices look like hell to settlers. It seems that the two groups can only get along if they are in different places, like the white pioneers pushing west across America, with the settlers filling in behind them.


    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...s-1096301.html
    Last edited by KC; 17-03-2018 at 09:31 AM.

  14. #214

    Default

    We have hundreds of free to use cable cars in Edmonton.

    They are called elevators.

    They work very reliably and efficiently.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  15. #215
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    At the moment, the Gondola concept is the winning selection of the Edmonton project. It was however, proposed last week by Councillor Tim Cartmell that a Gondola type system might be suitable for the Centre line.
    It’s fun to think about but we all know it’s not going to happen. Not until they are pretty much widely accepted and proven in other cities that our people here can relate to, that is.


    A fun exercise learning about them.
    The fact that at least 1 COE councilor is open to the idea and is a bold first step forward. Other then the Edmonton project selection (which could be built within my lifetime) I'm in agreement with you.

    ^ LOL. The slowest "cable cars" in active use are in LRT stations. I don't know how many times I missed my train because of the elevator. Yes I'm a glutton for punishment it seems. Want proof? I'm about to watch the Oilers game
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  16. #216

    Default

    I still like using the comparison between pork barrel projects and well run civic projects.

    Montreal's Stadium with a 73,000 seat capacity cost $770M ($10,547/seat) whereas the Commonwealth Stadium with a 42,500 seat capacity cost $20.9M ($492/seat), less than 1/20th the cost.

    Any gondola project needs to be properly scoped and contracted out to prevent project creep and pork barreling.

    Scholarly Text on costs
    Increasing the Capacities of Cable Cars for Use in Public Transport
    Sergej Težak, Ph.D., Drago Sever, Ph. D., Marjan Lep, Ph.D.
    University of Maribor, Slovenia

    http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/vi...70&context=jpt

    Price Comparisons with Cable Car SystemsAs stated by Clement-Werny at al. (2011), investment costs of existing mono-cable gondolas in mountain areas are as follows:


    • Drive station – 3,000,000 €
    • Intermediate station – 1,500,000 €
    • Return station – 1,000,000 €
    • Cabin (8–10 person) – 30,000 €
    • Pylon – 100,000 €
    • Carrying-hauling rope – 100,000 €


    The cost of a mono-cable gondola with a capacity of 3,000 persons/h with 100 cabins and 20 pylons without intermediate stations would be about $11 million US. However,
    this does not include the price of the land and the preparation for construction, which in urban environments can be very expensive. For example, the cost of a gondola
    in Maribor, which is not in an urban area, is $13.9 million US (12.2 million €), which includes 82 cabins, 19 pillars, a drive station, a return station, and one intermediate
    station.

    The cost for gondola LINE L in Medellin (93 cabins, 20 pylons, 2 intermediate stations) is $24 million US (Brand and Davila 2011). In Maribor, the new cable car was set
    up on the old site, which meant that the land was already purchased. In Medellin, a new cable car was set up at a new location in the city, which is a more expensive investment.


    Thus, the average price for mono-cable gondolas per km length in Medellin for the line L was $11.6 million US/km, and in Maribor it was $5.5 million US/km.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 17-03-2018 at 01:56 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  17. #217
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,445

    Default

    It looks like the gondolas are built in locations where the terrain does not facilitate other forms of transportation very well. Strathcona will have a high population density with projects like South Park coming on board. The Rossdale stop would be close to the Legislature, River Valley, Re/Max field and a revitalized power plant. The downtown stop could either be built at the Shaw or another downtown location. Please, let's evaluate the impact of the first leg, before deciding on further legs.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  18. #218
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,824

    Default

    Think of all the cash saved without building 2 bridges for the Centre line (and Yellowhead at Blatchford) if the COE decides to Gonodolize Centre line.

    Looks like I got a punishment reprieve from the Oilers/Panthers game, hehehe.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  19. #219

    Default

    La Paz has just opened the 6th line (White Line) in their system.

    2.9km with four stations. $60 million. Features include an underground station and a bridge station over a roadway.

    http://gondolaproject.com/2018/03/28...he-white-line/

  20. #220

    Default

    It will never work here.

    Just because some egghead in the City administration won't allow it to succeed.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  21. #221
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,824

    Default

    Not that I'm against Gondolas but I thought Admin closed this topic?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  22. #222
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,617
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Not this one. Yet.
    Ow

  23. #223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    It will never work here.

    Just because some egghead in the City administration won't allow it to succeed.
    Like those crazy people and their electric car talk. GM proved decades ago that no one would buy an electric car!


    Here’s the “PROOF” aka the “TRUTH” that NO ONE WOULD EVER BUY AN ELECTRIC CAR:


    https://regmedia.co.uk/2007/12/26/gm_electric_ev1.jpg


    The Electric Car Conspiracy ... that never was • The Register

    “It's almost two years since the debut of Chris Paine's documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? The movie has been a success in US theatres and often comprises one half of a double bill with Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. But what the success of the movie tells us is more alarming than any conspiracy it purports to unveil: a disdain for engineering, for technological innovation, and most of all a disdain for us, the consumers.

    It's the story of General Motors' ill-fated EV1 electric car.” ...


    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/0..._electric_car/

    Tesla CEO Elon Musk: General Motors "Should Have Gone to EV2 and EV3"

    “Did GM miss a trick by killing its speculative all-electric EV1 in the late 1990s?”
    His response:

    “They should have gone to EV2 and EV3, iterating it and making it better. The EV1 was not a great car. It had a lot of issues. But it was good enough to encourage people to take extraordinary steps to try to keep it and to hold candle-lit vigils when it was crushed. They don’t do that for other GM products.”
    The passion displayed by EV1 leasees should have been enough to convince General Motors to carry on with the program. If GM had done what Musk says (EV2 and EV3), then it seems likely that Tesla Motors probably would not exist today.

    GM created a cult of followers with the EV1. Those followers surely would have stayed with GM for EV2 and EV3. The word would’ve spread and GM would have become the dominant player in the EV space well before Tesla came on the scene. If there were a dominant EV maker already in place, then there’s likely no way Musk would venture into that dominated space.

    Fortunately, at least for Tesla, GM abandoned the EV1 program entirely, leaving all the room in the world for Tesla...





    https://insideevs.com/tesla-ceo-elon...-gone-ev2-ev3/



    Tesla and Horses: what did people actually say? – Robert Massaioli – Medium

    https://medium.com/@robertmassaioli/...ay-3c53169d9bc
    Last edited by KC; 02-04-2018 at 08:50 AM.

  24. #224

    Default

    Edmonton's gondola dream gets buy-in from Transit Advisory Board.
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...advisory-board

  25. #225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cumberland View Post
    Edmonton's gondola dream gets buy-in from Transit Advisory Board.
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...advisory-board
    A couple excerpts:


    “Gondolas across the Americas and Europe are actually turning a profit and ...”

    The subcommittee arrived at the idea independently of a pair of Edmonton residents who won the Edmonton Project with a gondola pitch in March. It presented its findings to the full board Monday. The board accepted the subcommittee’s research, which means ...”

    Gondolas can move up to 6,000 passengers an hour, roughly equal to the Metro LRT Line or 100 buses, and could go from downtown to Old Strathcona in seven minutes, said Slavov. That’s less than the time it takes to drive, he said. Plus, even lines like London’s Emirates Air Line, which has less than anticipated ridership, are still turning a profit.”

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...advisory-board

  26. #226
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    I have a meeting about this very subject today with a few stakeholders... curious to learn more.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  27. #227

    Default

    IanO

    Please take this urban gondola system into serious consideration. This form of transport is very economical and efficient with high ridership numbers. There are numerous examples of built systems and the fact that they are expanding them into networks, proves that they are viable.

    Unlike some who are proposing a tourism gondola, I seriously believe that a urban gondola from 102nd/Whyte to Rogers Place (not Shaw) would be a heavily used commuter route with tourism use being a bonus. A cost of a 3 km 6-8 passenger system would be in the $25M to $50M ($8-$17M/km) which is exponentially less than the average of ~$150M/km for a streetcar in Edmonton.

    It would be interesting to get an RFP from various manufacturers (rather than consultants or engineering firms), of an installed system based upon a gratis 99 year lease on the ROW

    PM me if you wish
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  28. #228
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    In years past I might have balked at the idea of the North terminus of this being at the conference centre (just out of the way enough to deter commuters, not directly connected to other transit options, etc) but with investment and speculation inching its way East down Jasper Ave this might be a good idea.

  29. #229

    Default

    EPRT - your time is better spent lobbying council, mayor. IanO doesn't really have any say in this, just like he has no say in provincial health care decisions.

  30. #230

    Default

    I like your route, EPRT. I think it would be great to tie this into Bay and a short walk to MacEwan. But 103 St is quite narrow going up the hill. Do you think there's room to run down it?

  31. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    In years past I might have balked at the idea of the North terminus of this being at the conference centre (just out of the way enough to deter commuters, not directly connected to other transit options, etc) but with investment and speculation inching its way East down Jasper Ave this might be a good idea.
    It would be nice to have a successful route right from the start rather than one that is a looser from the start and has to try to survive until growth grows into it.

  32. #232

    Default

    Rogers makes sense, biggest venue in the DT.

    Intermediate station at Bay connects to Jasper Ave and LRT

    Make it for commuters and transit users, not tourists
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  33. #233
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,445

    Default

    I hope that Thales get to do the signalling.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  34. #234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cumberland View Post
    I like your route, EPRT. I think it would be great to tie this into Bay and a short walk to MacEwan. But 103 St is quite narrow going up the hill. Do you think there's room to run down it?
    Beauty of gondolas is that you go over 103 st. lots of space.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  35. #235

    Default

    It is the biggest venue, but it's not the only venue. and you don't need it to be right there to attract arena ridership; people will walk a couple blocks.

    I'm not a fan of the shaw location either, but I would rather have the north station located closer to the 2LRT lines through the core. If we're going to thread it up into downtown I like 102st between jasper and 102 ave, otherwise there are decent locations at 100ave that are closer to the core of the core than Shaw is.

    With the valley line we will have LRT crossings both west and east of downtown, this one should be in the middle.
    There can only be one.

  36. #236
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    In years past I might have balked at the idea of the North terminus of this being at the conference centre (just out of the way enough to deter commuters, not directly connected to other transit options, etc) but with investment and speculation inching its way East down Jasper Ave this might be a good idea.
    It would be nice to have a successful route right from the start rather than one that is a looser from the start and has to try to survive until growth grows into it.
    But there's no real timeline on this yet. It would be 1 block from Churchill Square, where a person could transfer onto 2 different LRT lines or attend festivals and other events. Tied in directly with conference centre, close to a half-dozen hotels and right on main street. IF they're thinking of the parking lot to the West of the conference centre there could be a potential future extension right down 99th to the RAM or it could even hook to the left and land directly between Rogers and RAM for maximum ridership.

  37. #237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    In years past I might have balked at the idea of the North terminus of this being at the conference centre (just out of the way enough to deter commuters, not directly connected to other transit options, etc) but with investment and speculation inching its way East down Jasper Ave this might be a good idea.
    It would be nice to have a successful route right from the start rather than one that is a looser from the start and has to try to survive until growth grows into it.
    But there's no real timeline on this yet. It would be 1 block from Churchill Square, where a person could transfer onto 2 different LRT lines or attend festivals and other events. Tied in directly with conference centre, close to a half-dozen hotels and right on main street. IF they're thinking of the parking lot to the West of the conference centre there could be a potential future extension right down 99th to the RAM or it could even hook to the left and land directly between Rogers and RAM for maximum ridership.
    Or encircle north downtown in both directions. I hope they look at many options, including unusual ones. Maybe even supplement the metro line.

  38. #238

    Default

    My preferred route is as such with stops at: Whyte Ave (closer to 84th Avenue); Rossdale; Hotel Mac (at the ETS station currently next to Telus building). This used to the route I championed, but through these discussions, I do see value on bringing the line north one more top. I would propose that it continue north on 100St and have a station at the former "re-use" building in front of CN tower. This route you still get close to the arena, but you're also next to the Arts District, Churchill, etc....and you're not getting close to residentials as you would on 103rd street.

  39. #239
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,598

    Default

    Maybe it could tie into the underutilized parking lot used Saturdays for the Farmer's Market in Old Strathcona. Park and ride (the gondola).
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  40. #240

    Default

    That also is viable. Anything other than a dead end like Shaw. Not a transit hub, no LRT station and not much of an employment node.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  41. #241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Maybe it could tie into the underutilized parking lot used Saturdays for the Farmer's Market in Old Strathcona. Park and ride (the gondola).
    As long as it doesn't interfere with a future realignment of Gateway to go under Sask drive.

  42. #242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Maybe it could tie into the underutilized parking lot used Saturdays for the Farmer's Market in Old Strathcona. Park and ride (the gondola).
    That is the obvious and well discussed south anchor for the route. A support any route west of City Hall has my support. Still believe that 103rd st. is the best alignment and 104th is the less obvious but excellent alignment to have the terminus at GM LRT Station that is city owned land. That would be the Market-to-Market route
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  43. #243

    Default

    Getting a definite consensus vibe that this project be seen as a transit solution first, with a tourist attraction as a secondary goal. Whatever potential route is chosen, I hope this remains the focus.

    Interesting five-part article about the Koblenz Rheinseilbahn here:
    http://gondolaproject.com/2010/09/13...-introduction/

    Notice that they built a state-of-the-art 3S system capable of speeds up to 30km/h, yet they run it at 20km/h, because they feel that tourists want to get more 'bang for their buck'. Definitely something to think about, the danger of the scope creeping too far in the tourist attraction direction. I do like the look of some of the transit-concept cabins though. The stations look pretty cool too, with slim profiles. Not that I'd propose a 3S system for this line, where a MDG system will work just fine, just throwing focus and design ideas out there.
    Last edited by Cumberland; 01-05-2018 at 11:32 AM.

  44. #244

    Default

    Scope creep and a 'government project' view will turn this from a $25M - $50M idea into a $150M 'shovel ready' project and if the transportation or Transit Departments are against it, suddenly the estimates will be 'three times the cost' and a $450M gondola that will die on the drawing board.

    One must always remember that the longer Peak 2 Peak Gondola at Whistler Blackcomb was built in very difficult terrain and on a very expensive site for $51M in 2007-2008

    Length: 4.4 km
    Cost: $51M
    Cost per kilometer: $11.6M
    Highest point above the ground: 436 metres
    Longest free span between ropeway towers: 3.03 kilometres (WOW!)
    Capacity: 4,100 people per hour (equal to a 4 car consist, SD-160 LRT train, with 60 seats (240 total) on 7 minute frequency)
    Line Speed: 7.5 metres per second (28 km/hour)
    Ride Time: 11 minutes
    Construction: May 21, 2007 to Dec 12, 2008 19 months

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_2_Peak_Gondola

    Fun Fact: Construction of Edmonton's 'Shovel Ready' Metro Line was also approved in 2007 and construction began in 2008.

    How is that Metro Line signalling system coming together?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 01-05-2018 at 12:19 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  45. #245
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    EPRT - your time is better spent lobbying council, mayor. IanO doesn't really have any say in this, just like he has no say in provincial health care decisions.
    Oh you.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  46. #246
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    IanO

    Please take this urban gondola system into serious consideration. This form of transport is very economical and efficient with high ridership numbers. There are numerous examples of built systems and the fact that they are expanding them into networks, proves that they are viable.

    Unlike some who are proposing a tourism gondola, I seriously believe that a urban gondola from 102nd/Whyte to Rogers Place (not Shaw) would be a heavily used commuter route with tourism use being a bonus. A cost of a 3 km 6-8 passenger system would be in the $25M to $50M ($8-$17M/km) which is exponentially less than the average of ~$150M/km for a streetcar in Edmonton.

    It would be interesting to get an RFP from various manufacturers (rather than consultants or engineering firms), of an installed system based upon a gratis 99 year lease on the ROW

    PM me if you wish
    Thanks and I might take you up on that to connect you to those working on this.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  47. #247

    Default

    I was on a stakeholder committee regarding the Hybrid Diesel Bus vs the Electric Trolley debate. Did not take an hour to realize that the fix was in and we were just pawns.

    I would be be pleased to sit down with anyone to debate the issues, the merits and discuss possible solutions.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  48. #248
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    IanO

    Please take this urban gondola system into serious consideration. This form of transport is very economical and efficient with high ridership numbers. There are numerous examples of built systems and the fact that they are expanding them into networks, proves that they are viable.

    Unlike some who are proposing a tourism gondola, I seriously believe that a urban gondola from 102nd/Whyte to Rogers Place (not Shaw) would be a heavily used commuter route with tourism use being a bonus. A cost of a 3 km 6-8 passenger system would be in the $25M to $50M ($8-$17M/km) which is exponentially less than the average of ~$150M/km for a streetcar in Edmonton.

    It would be interesting to get an RFP from various manufacturers (rather than consultants or engineering firms), of an installed system based upon a gratis 99 year lease on the ROW

    PM me if you wish
    Totally agree with you it should run down 103 street to Ice District. Convention centre is not a high density or traffic area that could benefit in the short term.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  49. #249
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,445

    Default

    I like the 103 Street idea. The gondola will go straight-line to Rossdale. 103 Street is near Rogers Place, the Ice District, City Centre Mall and many of the new residential towers. Many other places are nearby.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  50. #250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I like the 103 Street idea. The gondola will go straight-line to Rossdale. 103 Street is near Rogers Place, the Ice District, City Centre Mall and many of the new residential towers. Many other places are nearby.
    Would much ridership come from downtown residential?

    Commuters would likely have to for the base demand form the system so I’d guess it would have to come from outside of downtown.

  51. #251

    Default

    ^ I don't know but if the COE is studying the Centre LRT Strathcona concept, there must be enough ridership overall. Compare a simple straight line $25M -$50M gondola along a 103rd street route with this crazy convoluted COE slow streetcar that would probably cost a billion dollars and requires a huge bridge.

    .

    I would rather see a 103rd street gondola trial to prove the viability (an investment equal to the funicular) and if the gondola proves popular, add another down the length of Whyte Avenue from Health Sciences Station to Bonnie Doon Mall with several intermediate stations.

    Done right, there would be far less disruption of business along Whyte and the huge mess that a grade level streetcar would create on all N/S routes including 109th, 104th, 103rd, 99th etc. Why build a bridge to cross the river when a few cables can do the job?



    If anyone thinks that Centre LRT would be a faster method to go between Old Strathcona and DT than a gondola, needs to have their head examined.

    NTKCLRT = Need To Kill Centre LRT
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 02-05-2018 at 07:45 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  52. #252

    Default

    I do like the Gondola idea, but let's not pretend that it does the same job as a streetcar.

  53. #253

    Default

    Only if we stop pretending that a streetcar does a different job than a bus.
    There can only be one.

  54. #254

    Default

    and lets not confuse a streetcar with a high speed LRT system.

  55. #255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    I do like the Gondola idea, but let's not pretend that it does the same job as a streetcar.
    You are right. A gondola can do much more than a streetcar and be above traffic snarls, without adding to the problem and cost 1/10th as much.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 02-05-2018 at 10:28 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  56. #256

    Default

    A gondola can't stop as frequent as a streetcar, or a bus though... It doesn't provide local service like those would. Mostly point to point, with one or two intermediate stops.

    And as for costs... I think it may cost less, but you're getting less as well.

    No, your paper napkin math doesn't count either.

  57. #257

    Default

    EPRT: How many intermediate stops along Whyte Ave would be too many before a gondola isn't competitive with an express bus?

    I'm all in favour of a DT-Old Strathcona gondola, preferably a more central alignment than Shaw.

    I also think that for Centre LRT, everything between 107 St and the University would be complete waste of money, needless duplication of existing LRT, extremely slow service, a construction nightmare, and would create utter traffic gridlock. Probably the worst ever LRT plan to come from the City, which is saying a lot.

    I'm not at all convinced that either a gondola or streetcar-style LRT down Whyte would be competitive with express buses utilizing off-board payment, all-door boarding, curb extension stops, bus queue lanes and priority signalling. That said, a gondola would be much less expensive and construction disruptive to Whyte Ave than LRT.

  58. #258

    Default

    To show skeptics, here is the Mont Tremblant gondola that provides low impact, high usage right through the center of the ski village to the other ski gondolas and lifts. The short route is standup for riders but provides service right over buildings even a swimming pool.







    Quiet, low cost and without ripping up streets.

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  59. #259
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,824

    Default

    Centre line LRT=bad idea.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  60. #260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cumberland View Post
    EPRT: How many intermediate stops along Whyte Ave would be too many before a gondola isn't competitive with an express bus?

    I'm all in favour of a DT-Old Strathcona gondola, preferably a more central alignment than Shaw.

    I also think that for Centre LRT, everything between 107 St and the University would be complete waste of money, needless duplication of existing LRT, extremely slow service, a construction nightmare, and would create utter traffic gridlock. Probably the worst ever LRT plan to come from the City, which is saying a lot.

    I'm not at all convinced that either a gondola or streetcar-style LRT down Whyte would be competitive with express buses utilizing off-board payment, all-door boarding, curb extension stops, bus queue lanes and priority signalling. That said, a gondola would be much less expensive and construction disruptive to Whyte Ave than LRT.

    From real examples, some of which I posted before with videos showing how intermediate stations work, here is the Metrocable urban gondola map in Columbia lines J,K & L
    The 600-900 m between stations compares favorably with streetcars planned for Edmonton


    Line K was the initial line that was built and was first opened in 2004. It is 1.8 km and contains the following four stations: Acevedo, Andalucia, Popular, and Santo Domingo.
    (1.8km with 4 stations =600m average distance between stations)


    Line J
    Soon after officials saw the enormous success of Line K, plans to proceed with another line - Line J - was immediately on the table. It officially opened in 2008. Similar to Line K, it also has four stations: San Javier, Juan XXIII, Vallejuelos and La Aurora. The entire length of Line J runs along 2.7 km of cable.
    (2.7km with 4 stations =900m average distance between stations)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metroc...Medell%C3%ADn)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi_Telef%C3%A9rico

    Mi Teleférico, also known as Teleférico La Paz–El Alto, is an aerial cable car urban transit system serving the La Paz–El Alto metropolitan area in Bolivia. WikipediaBegan operation: May 30, 2014
    Locale: La Paz
    Number of lines: 6 (5 in planning)
    Number of stations: 20 (15 in planning)
    Number of vehicles: 909
    Transit type: Gondola lift
    System length: 20.2 km (12.6 mi)
    Maximum capacity: 6000 passengers per hour
    Mi Teleférico system averages 900-1300 meters between stations


    Lines in operationThe Mi Teleférico system consists of monocable aerial cable car lines. Each line has a maximum capacity of 6000 passengers per hour. The network has a total of five lines, with 443 cars on the Red, Green, and Yellow Lines, 208 on the Blue Line, 127 on the Orange Line, and 131 on the White Line. Each car seats 10 passengers. Cars depart every 12 seconds, and the network is open 17 hours a day.


    According to Mi Teleférico, the Red, Yellow, and Green Lines combined transport between 80,000 and 90,000 passengers per day. Of these, the Yellow and Red Lines, the two lines that link La Paz and El Alto, account for some 70,000 rides. During its opening week, the Blue Line moved 41,000 passengers in one day, and it has increased ridership on the Red Line by 15%.
    Began operation 30 May 2014 and now exceeds 120,000 passenger a day. Not bad!

    Remember our entire LRT system built since 1978 has a current ridership of
    112,531
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 02-05-2018 at 11:38 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  61. #261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    A gondola can't stop as frequent as a streetcar, or a bus though... It doesn't provide local service like those would. Mostly point to point, with one or two intermediate stops.

    And as for costs... I think it may cost less, but you're getting less as well.

    No, your paper napkin math doesn't count either.
    Can you provide us with the average distance between stops on the Valley Line?

    According to Wiki, the Valley line will be 27km long with 28 stops or an average of 1,000m between stations.

    The Metro line uses 3.3 kilometres of new track, three new stations. The cost of the project is approximately $665 million, construction began in 2008 and is not working correctly since completion in September 6, 2015. Average stops are 1,100m apart

    According to my info, urban Gondola systems are operating with 600m-1300m distances between stops.

    The facts are clear, stations can be just as frequencent on a properly designed urban gondola system as the slow streetcar that Edmonton is building.


    Construction time
    The Mi Teleférico system was approved for construction in July 2012 and Phase One was inaugurated and began operation on May 2014, Phase Two in September 2017 and has a ridership of 120,000 compared to about 10,000 for the Metro Line
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  62. #262

    Default

    EPRT

    You're not taking into account average speed.

    From the wiki article you linked above, the Blue Line in La Paz is comparable (4.7km) to the distance between Health Sciences and Bonnie Doon. It has three intermediate stops, trip time is 17 minutes. That works out to 16.6km/h.

    We'd probably want one or two more intermediate stops between HS and BD, which would make for even slower average speed. I'll grant you that it would be possible to increase average speed by installing a faster 3S system, at increased cost, which would still be a fraction of LRT costs, but even then I think express bus is the way to go on Whyte.

    A gondola makes sense over the river between Old Strathcona and DT because the slower average speed is compensated by the shorter route straight over the river as opposed to a circuitous route, west or east and back again.

  63. #263

    Default

    There is almost zero wait time for a gondola that runs on a 12 second frequency but a streetcar runs on a schedule. You may have to wait 5, 10 minutes or even longer off peak hours. Add that to your average trip time.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  64. #264

    Default

    OK that's a fair point.

    You previously suggested two lines from Gateway, one west to HS, and one east to BD. Would you still advocate for that, or maybe a single, faster 3S line?

  65. #265

    Default

    Which 3S system are you suggesting?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  66. #266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Which 3S system are you suggesting?
    Not any particular one. I'm just throwing out ideas. I like the Koblenz cars, which would allow for standing room, and lots of room for bicycles, strollers, walkers, small carts, etc. The size may be a bit overkill for Whyte though. Slightly smaller cabins (say 20 person?), and more of them at a slightly higher frequency maybe?

    Thing is, we can customize the system for what we actually need it to do. City should talk directly with Doppelmayr and Leitner on this.

  67. #267
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    I wonder if a gondola might be worth a look from South Campus to Ft Edmonton and crossing over to the Valley Zoo. Actually tie those tourist attractions (incl the valley itself) to the LRT and University. If a person really wanted to get crazy it could go past the zoo and connect to the Valley line at Meadowlark too, providing a potential commuter connection as well as a connection from WEM to the valley for tourists. Or North to Hawrelak then up to the Grovenor stop.

    Just thinking out loud. Feel free to rip this apart. I haven't put a lot of thought into it.
    Last edited by Alex.L; 02-05-2018 at 08:24 PM.

  68. #268

    Default

    Let's work on one project at a time, prove it out and then move to a second.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  69. #269
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Let's work on one project at a time, prove it out and then move to a second.
    Oh definitely. I'm just thinking of other applications that might make sense. It checks a lot of boxes.

  70. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cumberland View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Which 3S system are you suggesting?
    Not any particular one. I'm just throwing out ideas. I like the Koblenz cars, which would allow for standing room, and lots of room for bicycles, strollers, walkers, small carts, etc. The size may be a bit overkill for Whyte though. Slightly smaller cabins (say 20 person?), and more of them at a slightly higher frequency maybe?

    Thing is, we can customize the system for what we actually need it to do. City should talk directly with Doppelmayr and Leitner on this.
    An 8-10 passenger cabin is big enough for wheelchairs or strollers or bicycles.

    Whether it is a 3S or MGD Doppelmayr Detachable Gondola Lifts or other model from Leitner or other manufacturers is a bit ahead of the scope of where we are at this point. The 3S may be technically superior with two fixed track ropes and one continuously moving haul rope; better in high winds, long spans, higher speed and greater passenger capacity. The question is, do we need a Cadillac system or will a Camry do the job at lower cost. We don't have high winds compared to a mountain top and our longest span are short, and do we need the highest speed and capacity?

    Open a Request For Proposals, invite several gondola companies to tour the sites and see what they offer. Maybe we will get entirely different proposals with taller-further spaced towers all the way to NAIT, another may off a less expensive more utilitarian line and more stations, anther may offer a larger , +40 passenger cabin but less frequency. Let's see some ideas!
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  71. #271

    Default

    Yep, agreed. I'm totally open for suggestions. Think we should start with the river crossing line and see how it goes before we look at Whyte or other routes.

  72. #272

    Default

    I think this would be the most exciting transit route in the city.

    Now how do we prevent Thales from getting into the bidding?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  73. #273

    Default

    I think Thales will give sober second thought before bidding on any future CoE projects.

  74. #274

    Default

    And the city should not allow Thales to bid on any further projects. Full stop.

    If you run the gondola down 103 street, whee do you put the station? Based on your picture, it's a substantial structure.


  75. #275

    Default

    103 doesn't have any great places, but if you go 102st then you can build it in the middle of the block north of Jasper that's essentially a 6-lane parkade access, or even build it right into the second floor of City Centre Mall.
    There can only be one.

  76. #276

    Default

    I strongly support a design that has intermediate or terminus stations inside buildings or as an add-on

    103rd is fine too. A Jasper Ave station connected directly into the Bay building with an indoor LRT connection, the CWB Tower and the Enbridge Tower across the street and the terminus at Rogers, the City Centre Mall and parking garage directly east, with the DT Market one block over to the West; are not great places????

    Please tell me what I missed?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 03-05-2018 at 08:46 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  77. #277

    Default

    The cost escalation that will bring.

  78. #278

    Default

    ^^I'm taking about the available room only, 103 has less space available on the ground, an at-grade station won't work and any standalone entrance stairs/elevators would be tricky. No problem with an elevated station that integrates with and existing building or pedway. The bay/ex-Enbridge pedway would work, so would the planed Stantec/tower B pedway as long as there would be round the clock elevator access.
    There can only be one.

  79. #279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    The cost escalation that will bring.
    Exponentially less than a slow streetcar bridge
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  80. #280

    Default

    ^^ Building integration might cost less if it means that the building elevators/stars can be used instead of a big dedicated structure. A simple tie in to a pedway would be the most likely solution since a station right in a building would be much more complicated to negotiate and design if not necessarily to build. The South side of CCM would have the space and clearances, the hard part would be reinforcing the structure to take the lateral forces.
    There can only be one.

  81. #281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^^I'm taking about the available room only, 103 has less space available on the ground, an at-grade station won't work and any standalone entrance stairs/elevators would be tricky. No problem with an elevated station that integrates with and existing building or pedway. The bay/ex-Enbridge pedway would work, so would the planed Stantec/tower B pedway as long as there would be round the clock elevator access.
    I don't believe that we have to determine an exact route at this time. I am in the 'anything but Shaw' camp. A route DT somewhere between 100th st and 104th st works for me.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  82. #282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    The cost escalation that will bring.
    Exponentially less than a slow streetcar bridge
    ya, I'm not so sure I can agree, especially based on your paper napkin math.

  83. #283
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    I'm still not convinced that it needs to tie directly to Ice District. All we're doing by funneling everything to that area is ensuring areas like the Quarters get no investment. Even if a Gondola goes to the conference centre it's like a 3 block walk to ice district anyway.

    And wasn't there a proposal at one point to turn 99th between 102 and Jasper into a grand plaza of some sort with a lookout over the river anyway? This stuff all ties together if that's even still on the table.

    We can't complain about crowds in one thread during playoffs then advocate for every transit option to terminate in the same area a year later. Spread the foot traffic out just a little bit and the downtown will be better as a result. Foot traffic going in different directions will make downtown safer (perception-wise). Plus with it comes the added bonus of not having to hear people yelling that the city is catering to Katz with another vanity project (always a plus).
    Last edited by Alex.L; 03-05-2018 at 09:30 AM.

  84. #284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    I do like the Gondola idea, but let's not pretend that it does the same job as a streetcar.
    You are right. A gondola can do much more than a streetcar and be above traffic snarls, without adding to the problem and cost 1/10th as much.
    A gondola does much more? It transports people at a much lower cost, sure, but what does it do that a street car doesn't? o.k. it avoids traffic, but in doing so it also sacrifices the ability for passengers to get out where they want. A street car has the advantage of more frequent stops whereas a gondola typically only takes people between two points. If you want to stop anywhere in between you're out of luck.

  85. #285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    I'm still not convinced that it needs to tie directly to Ice District. All we're doing by funneling everything to that area is ensuring areas like the Quarters get no investment. Even if a Gondola goes to the conference centre it's like a 3 block walk to ice district anyway.
    I hope you're not suggesting we build a gondola to nowhere (the quarters).

  86. #286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    The cost escalation that will bring.
    Exponentially less than a slow streetcar bridge
    ya, I'm not so sure I can agree, especially based on your paper napkin math.
    Look, I get your negativity but you have supplied no sourced information to the contrary. Just your criticism.

    I presented sourced information with a cost of $51M from a real project in Canada, the Whistler Peak-2-Peak gondola. The gondola was far more difficult to construct with extensive need to haul in supplies with helicopters and extreme terrain and weather. The longer line of 4.4k, has a single huge span equal to the entire Edmonton 3.3 km line proposal. Our needs are lower and therefore the cost should be in the $25M - $50M range. I did not see you being so critical over the $24M we spent on a funicular.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  87. #287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    I do like the Gondola idea, but let's not pretend that it does the same job as a streetcar.
    You are right. A gondola can do much more than a streetcar and be above traffic snarls, without adding to the problem and cost 1/10th as much.
    A gondola does much more? It transports people at a much lower cost, sure, but what does it do that a street car doesn't? o.k. it avoids traffic, but in doing so it also sacrifices the ability for passengers to get out where they want. A street car has the advantage of more frequent stops whereas a gondola typically only takes people between two points. If you want to stop anywhere in between you're out of luck.
    Your perception is incorrect. Please reread earlier posts. Many urban gondolas have intermediate stops as close as streetcars.

    POST #261
    According to Wiki, the Valley line will be 27km long with 28 stops or an average of 1,000m between stations.

    The Metro line uses 3.3 kilometres of new track, three new stations. The cost of the project is approximately $665 million, construction began in 2008 and is not working correctly since completion in September 6, 2015. Average stops are 1,100m apart


    According to my info, urban Gondola systems are operating with 600m-1300m distances between stops.


    The facts are clear, stations can be just as frequently on a properly designed urban gondola system as the slow streetcar that Edmonton is building.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  88. #288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    The cost escalation that will bring.
    Exponentially less than a slow streetcar bridge
    ya, I'm not so sure I can agree, especially based on your paper napkin math.
    Look, I get your negativity but you have supplied no sourced information to the contrary. Just your criticism.

    I presented sourced information with a cost of $51M from a real project in Canada, the Whistler Peak-2-Peak gondola. The gondola was far more difficult to construct with extensive need to haul in supplies with helicopters and extreme terrain and weather. The longer line of 4.4k, has a single huge span equal to the entire Edmonton 3.3 km line proposal. Our needs are lower and therefore the cost should be in the $25M - $50M range. I did not see you being so critical over the $24M we spent on a funicular.
    Yes, your non-urban whistler gondola certain compares well with a gondola built in an urban environment, especially in terms of cost.... yes, that should be read with sarcasm. Sounds like you should be a CoE administrator. The cost might be $, but it actually might be $$, or even $$$... I also don't see this as a replacement to true mass transit services. Just like PRT, in a decade of debate, you'll finally come to your senses about this too.

    I still think the funicular is a bad idea, but some people supported it, so I wasn't going to get in the way. It was also tied in with funding for a footbridge to terwillegar for $8M which I fully support.

  89. #289

    Default

    EPRT, likes anything that's above ground. Hates LRT and trains.

  90. #290

    Default

    You know that is categorically untrue. If you cannot debate the facts...

    I have stated many times that I am a strong supporter of our original LRT line when we could build 5 stations including two massive underground ones for $65M and the extensions all the way to the UofA, then the costs got crazy. $100 million just to get from HUB to UofA Hospital.

    Even my previous support of PRT systems included elevated, at grade and underground capabilities.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  91. #291

    Default

    Medwards, what do you think costs will be?

    I think the comparison to whistler isn't great simply because the cost of intermediate stations will be significant - in the $10-15m each range unless the city can be convinced to go with a barebones system. Which is unlikely since as a minimum each station will need an elevator to get up to station level.

    The shaw plan that turns and winds along the valley would also be considerably more expensive; that's one reason that I don't like it. And any urban section will be more expensive as well.

    And as much as mountains are hard places to build, rock foundations are less expensive than digging into soft clay at the edge of a valley.
    There can only be one.

  92. #292

    Default

    65M in 1980 in a few more in 2018 dollars, but I think you know I support LRT built in cheaper pre-existing right of ways that the city has neglected to use, or squandered away.... but Gondolas really aren't a replacement for proper LRT.

  93. #293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Medwards, what do you think costs will be?

    I think the comparison to whistler isn't great simply because the cost of intermediate stations will be significant - in the $10-15m each range unless the city can be convinced to go with a barebones system. Which is unlikely since as a minimum each station will need an elevator to get up to station level.

    The shaw plan that turns and winds along the valley would also be considerably more expensive; that's one reason that I don't like it. And any urban section will be more expensive as well.

    And as much as mountains are hard places to build, rock foundations are less expensive than digging into soft clay at the edge of a valley.
    It really depends on how many stations, length of system, and where we plan to install it. When we consider gondolas to be more than just a novelty tourist gondola, and actual public transit, we need it to be accessible to all. Elevators up to the gondola stations wouldn't be cheap. Private property, utility relocation, security measures, rescue services all need special equipment to deal with issues that may arise on a gondola, and those services aren't cheap.

  94. #294
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    I'm still not convinced that it needs to tie directly to Ice District. All we're doing by funneling everything to that area is ensuring areas like the Quarters get no investment. Even if a Gondola goes to the conference centre it's like a 3 block walk to ice district anyway.
    I hope you're not suggesting we build a gondola to nowhere (the quarters).
    A gondola to the conference centre. 1 block from Churchill Square (Citadel, Winspear, Festivals, AGA), 2 blocks from RAM, 3 blocks from ice district, 1/2 block from Canada Place, 1 block from ATB/Telus, RHW, basically right next to 9Triple8, maybe 2 blocks from the new hotel in the quarters and the new pedestrian plaza, tied directly to the indoor funicular taking people to the river valley, 1 block from Hotel Mac and the new funicular, Right next to the Courtyard Marriot.

    Yep. I'm suggesting a gondola to nowhere. It amazes me that it's fine for the gondola to terminate NE of Gateway Blvd where people will be expected to walk to their destination, but we have to terminate it basically right at Ford Hall for it to be feasible North of the river.

  95. #295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Medwards, what do you think costs will be?

    I think the comparison to whistler isn't great simply because the cost of intermediate stations will be significant - in the $10-15m each range unless the city can be convinced to go with a barebones system. Which is unlikely since as a minimum each station will need an elevator to get up to station level.

    The shaw plan that turns and winds along the valley would also be considerably more expensive; that's one reason that I don't like it. And any urban section will be more expensive as well.

    And as much as mountains are hard places to build, rock foundations are less expensive than digging into soft clay at the edge of a valley.
    It really depends on how many stations, length of system, and where we plan to install it. When we consider gondolas to be more than just a novelty tourist gondola, and actual public transit, we need it to be accessible to all. Elevators up to the gondola stations wouldn't be cheap. Private property, utility relocation, security measures, rescue services all need special equipment to deal with issues that may arise on a gondola, and those services aren't cheap.
    Absolutely.

    I expect that a 83ave to McDonald Drive route with effectively at-grade stations(ramp-able) and no intermediate Rossdale stop would be in that $40-50m range. Rossdale would be a $15m add, and a 2nd downtown station that would probably be required if the downtown terminus is north of 102ave would be another $15.
    There can only be one.

  96. #296

    Default

    Even at that it is a way better investment than a streetcar called the Centre LRT to Stathcona.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  97. #297

    Default

    Yep. Between a new bridge and tunneled access the river crossing part of the Centre LRT would probably be north of $300m. And would be right beside the existing LRT.
    There can only be one.

  98. #298

    Default

    Well Centre LRT is really a non-starter for me in its current design, especially the river crossing at that point. Maybe Centre LRT can come out of callingwood, down 87 avenue, and across the river to uofa, then down whyte avenue to boonie doon... a transfer station at boonie doon and uofa


    oh wait, wrong thread.

  99. #299
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,824

    Default

    We can't even get our crosswalks fixed up and we're talking future LRT expansion, that probably wont get underway anyway.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  100. #300
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    And the city should not allow Thales to bid on any further projects. Full stop.

    If you run the gondola down 103 street, whee do you put the station? Based on your picture, it's a substantial structure.

    Blame the City of Edmonton on this one. CoE wanted a CBTC system for the Nait line. The other biders bowed out saying a CBTC system won't work. Thales believed they could make it work. The City of Edmonton, should have heeded the advice of the other biders but no, coe wanted a CBTC system. Thales still believes they can make it work here as in recent reports on local news. Meanwhile this saga continues.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •