Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 768

Thread: River Valley Mechanized Access/Funicular | Under Construction

  1. #1
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Where ever Visa is accepted
    Posts
    4,415

    Default River Valley Mechanized Access/Funicular | Under Construction

    EDMONTON - The city hopes to start construction this year on Alberta’s only funicular that would improve access to the river valley.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...994/story.html
    I'm having people over later to stare at their phones,if you want to drop by

  2. #2

    Default

    Boondoggle 2015!

    All said and done, this thing will probably cost us $1000 per person per use over time.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  3. #3

    Default

    Great to see again CC has no clue about the current fiscal climate.

  4. #4

    Default

    My god you people. It says COULD and you make it seem like its going to be built anyhow.

  5. #5

    Default

    Up, Up, Up.

    Its all happening.

    edit. whoops, did not read.
    Last edited by Replacement; 07-04-2015 at 02:40 PM. Reason: should read more ;)
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  6. #6
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Up, Up, Up.

    Its all happening.

    edit. whoops, did not read.
    C'est le fil.
    Xelebes

  7. #7
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,243

    Default

    Access to the river valley is important, this, now, at that cost, even with funding, is NOT.

    But I have more important thing to worry about, so bring it on and fund away!
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  8. #8

    Default

    ^like buying a street sweeper?

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Access to the river valley is important, this, now, at that cost, even with funding, is NOT.

    But I have more important thing to worry about, so bring it on and fund away!
    SCC has been my funicular ride or escalator when I'm feeling lazy or just cycled in from Millhoods.

    Stairs seem to work fine though..

    This is kind of barking up the wrong tree imo. Anybody needing a Funicular ride isn't going to be so adept anyway at exploring the River Valley. If one does happen to be handicapped the SCC elevator would still be the best bet.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  10. #10
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnoblade View Post
    ^like buying a street sweeper?
    Exactly*

    *although different sources/pockets so not really possible, but imagine 50 more sweepers and staff.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  11. #11

    Default

    There has to be brick and mortar amenities on both ends of it to be truly successful for all citizens. I'm healthy and young and would only use it if it were a "destination" in itself, not merely river access only. Piece of a pie at best, but alone it might prove inefficient.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  12. #12
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,243

    Default

    My large question is where does it go to?!!?!?

    Oh the valley, well then, washes hands.

    It drops you into no mans land in one of the worst area for connections.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  13. #13

    Default

    ^Did you even bother to read the story it said where it would / could go.

  14. #14
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,243

    Default

    Yes. But where DOES it go? Add another ped bridge AND maybe 'a short elevator ride'.

    So very well thought out.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  15. #15
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default


  16. #16

  17. #17

    Default

    Another "shovel ready project" to get funding from other levels of government.

    Read: Pigs at the trough...

    Last time I looked, we already have a funicular in the Edmonton Convention Center

    This is a useless boondoggle. Even if they built a PRT line to this site I would be against it simply because it will be a underused route that does not pass the cost benefit analysis.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  18. #18
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,977

    Default

    Build it and they will come... right?
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  19. #19
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Build it and they will come... right?
    Build what where? You are not going to take this down and stroll to Rossdale if you are mobility challenged, you will drive, bus or cab and then explore our new farmer's market, museum, artshab and brewpub and then depart.
    Last edited by IanO; 07-04-2015 at 04:57 PM.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  20. #20
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,806

    Default

    This thing seems so incredibly ill-conceived.

  21. #21

  22. #22

    Default

    This will be the world's most expensive moving toilet to nowhere ever.

    If Crashed Ice taught us anything, there is ample access to the river valley, and people will access it with the infrastructure we have, if there's something worth seeing.

    We don't have an access problem, we have a content problem. The valley is lame-balls.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  23. #23

    Default

    Still no regular spring/summer programming at the stage at LMP? Might be a good place to start.

  24. #24
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    251

    Default

    They have built funiculars in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook and by gum, it put them on the map!

  25. #25
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Lmao I thought this thing was DOA. Can't believe they are actually thinking of building it. This city sometimes...
    be offended! figure out why later...

  26. #26

    Default

    When I saw it on the Journal's website I thought it was leftover from April 1st. I was saddened to see it was actually real.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    We don't have an access problem, we have a content problem. The valley is lame-balls.
    Big time.

  28. #28

    Default

    Right on! Commercialize a portion of the river valley, and a big FU to those people who don't want any development whatsoever..Provide transit or parking, and people will come. Screw the funicular. I don't get this city sometimes...


    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    We don't have an access problem, we have a content problem. The valley is lame-balls.
    Big time.

  29. #29

    Default

    Wow. All this negativity without any substantive argument as to why it's destined to be a failure.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Another "shovel ready project" to get funding from other levels of government.

    Read: Pigs at the trough...

    Last time I looked, we already have a funicular in the Edmonton Convention Center

    ...
    It is too bad that they didn't finish the centre with that last leg downhill as originally proposed. Instead they gave us an expensive 'deck' to nowhere but over a roadway. Finishing it with a roof and an escalator would have been nice.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Wow. All this negativity without any substantive argument as to why it's destined to be a failure.
    OK, here is a question. Where is the demand or need demonstrated?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Wow. All this negativity without any substantive argument as to why it's destined to be a failure.
    OK, here is a question. Where is the demand or need demonstrated?
    People don't demand these sorts of things. It may be like Steve Jobs said:

    "It's not about pop culture, and it's not about fooling people, and it's not about convincing people that they want something they don't. We figure out what we want. And I think we're pretty good at having the right discipline to think through whether a lot of other people are going to want it, too. That's what we get paid to do.
    "So you can't go out and ask people, you know, what the next big [thing.] There's a great quote by Henry Ford, right? He said, 'If I'd have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me "A faster horse." ' "

  33. #33

    Default

    Steve Jobs did not create white elephants and Henry Ford did not build funiculars.

    They both created a better technology that was practical, useful and served the masses.

    This ain't...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  34. #34
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,968

    Default

    Build a big bar at the bottom and it will be busy.

  35. #35

    Default

    ...and maybe a strip club with a casino.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Wow. All this negativity without any substantive argument as to why it's destined to be a failure.
    Failure:

    Devising a funicular system where one already exists @ SCC and has the exact same terminus. Thus providing NO further access to the river than what is already provided.

    Lets spend millions on something incredibly stupid to accomplish absolutely nothing.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  37. #37

    Default

    I might think differently about this if it wasn't planned on being right next to the Shaw Conference Center.

    There really would be no reason for anyone to ever use it.

  38. #38

    Default

    Edmonton has been considering creating mechanized access into the valley for years.

    A project in Louise McKinney Park was rejected, and a gondola south of 104th Street was shot down by city councillors in 2013.

    They’re expected to discuss the latest plan in May.
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...994/story.html

    It is not just the third proposal, it is the forth because the 104th street route for a gondola was originally planned as a funicular. Doesn't the COE Admin understand that they should quit wasting time and taxpayers' money on a thrice failed proposal, that is someones pet project that is looking for a place to be built?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #39
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,410

    Default

    This is some novelty where provincial and federal money has been allocated, and the city has to match. The Hotel MacDonald is a half decent location, but I think the south side of the high level bridge might work better.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  40. #40
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,630

    Default

    I would gladly take 34 silver balls sculptures rather than this. This would easily be the biggest waste of money ever. It would end up costing 50% more than the estimate, a few people might use it once, and then it would see maybe 20-30 people per day on average. Then it would break down due to our 'unique climate' and get torn out in 10-15 years.

  41. #41
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    820

    Default

    As a selfish mountain biker, I would appreciate the help getting out of the valley after an afternoon of trail mashing. The lungs burn as I chug up past the Leg.

    That said, just no.
    YEG lifer. Phillips liver.

  42. #42

    Default

    Wow, not a popular idea here on C2E!

    If I recall correctly, the city was trying for a federal grant to fund it, however that in itself is not enough to justify it's expenditure, plus there are operating costs.

    I'm not completely negative about the idea, more baffled than anything. Who is driving this initiative, and is there a larger plan to how this piece will fit into any riverside development or city pedestrian plan? It's questionable to to provide people access to river valley and have nowhere for them to go or anything for them to do once they are there. Clearly, this is not or shouldn't be being built for mountain bikers who would not have prohibitive disabilities.

  43. #43
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,968

    Default

    Maybe it's just Macdonald Hotel patron pampering.

  44. #44

    Default

    All said, I don't think it would be any eyesore. Another wide set of stairs with bike ramps is a welcome addition too.

    I just question if there is an overall river vally plan, and how it fits in and if operating expenses would justify the expenditure.

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    This is some novelty where provincial and federal money has been allocated, and the city has to match. The Hotel MacDonald is a half decent location, but I think the south side of the high level bridge might work better.
    We do not have to match. Since when can the Province or Feds force us to build a project?

    Even paying a third of $24M is still $8M poorly spent.

    I would rather see 6 or 8 of these at steep hill locations for bikes





    or I would rather see $24M spent on a Bixi bike system like they have in Montreal and other cities. A fantastic number of users 3.2 Million, 420 stations, 5,200 bikes

    http://spacing.ca/montreal/2009/05/2...-the-bixi-yet/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bixi_Montreal

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEeVee7G9LU
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 08-04-2015 at 10:46 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  46. #46

    Default

    Instead of this gimmick, I would rather see this money spent on improving some of the river valley trails, staircases, and then adding some signs so people can find them all easier.

  47. #47

    Default

    ^^

    There was talk of a bikeshare program once Blatchford gets up and running. Before you can have a successful program, there needs to be a safe bike network first.

  48. #48

    Default

    Didn't see this article posted. It has some information the journal article didn't have.

    At first glance, I didn't like this, but there isn't enough good info for me to fall squarely into that camp. Also, taking advantage of the money available is attractive. It would be better to have no strings attached to the $, but the funding is what it is, apparently...

    http://www.630ched.com/2015/04/08/pl...r-ready-to-go/

    Time’s ticking on the $24 million system that would start near the Hotel MacDonald and run into Louise McKinney Park. It’ll be done through the River Valley Alliance, which got it’s hands on federal and provincial funding. The catch is, construction has to start soon, to be completed by 2017, or else that funding goes away.

    “What’s really good about it the city of Edmonton taxpayer directly is not putting in all that much money,” Marchak said. “It’s kind of one of those rare opportunities when the timing and the money has come together. If we don’t use the money on this it does get returned to the funders and we don’t have it available for any other project.”

    “The alignment that we’re proposing comes at a bit of angle to the hill, which allows us to lay it quite tight into the hill so it doesn’t stand out in any major way, but fits quite nicely with in the slopes.”

  49. #49

    Default

    AS the SCC and other construction hilited the river slopes are unstable, poorly suited for construction, and require massive amounts of footings and engineering to withstand the loose slopes. This issue was also cited with the formerly proposed RAM expansion (on current site) that was to expand it down to the river valley but which was prohibitively expensive to do. LRT tunneling from grandin to U of A was also unexpectedly problematic due to unstable conditions in the banks making the whole project much more difficult

    Are we really getting the full scoop here? Are the known engineering difficulties that resulted in SCC cost overruns even being considered in this construction?

    I'm simply a layman and I have concerns about even the projected cost of this project and would expect higher than cited costs.

    Why also the continued press misinformation about this being Edmonton first funicular?

    Edmonton had its first Funicular over a 100yrs ago and it was poorly received and only lasted 2 years.

    There is a current Funicular in SCC that hardly anybody uses or apparently even knows about.

    Can we expect any fact finding before the journalistic nonsense that is being printed?
    Last edited by Replacement; 08-04-2015 at 01:06 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lat View Post
    Didn't see this article posted. It has some information the journal article didn't have.

    At first glance, I didn't like this, but there isn't enough good info for me to fall squarely into that camp. Also, taking advantage of the money available is attractive. It would be better to have no strings attached to the $, but the funding is what it is, apparently...

    http://www.630ched.com/2015/04/08/pl...r-ready-to-go/

    Time’s ticking on the $24 million system that would start near the Hotel MacDonald and run into Louise McKinney Park. It’ll be done through the River Valley Alliance, which got it’s hands on federal and provincial funding. The catch is, construction has to start soon, to be completed by 2017, or else that funding goes away.

    “What’s really good about it the city of Edmonton taxpayer directly is not putting in all that much money,” Marchak said. “It’s kind of one of those rare opportunities when the timing and the money has come together. If we don’t use the money on this it does get returned to the funders and we don’t have it available for any other project.”

    “The alignment that we’re proposing comes at a bit of angle to the hill, which allows us to lay it quite tight into the hill so it doesn’t stand out in any major way, but fits quite nicely with in the slopes.”
    Seeing this drawing makes me think the city is getting a grand new staircase with a funicular thrown in.

    People against this proposal but for more staircases, etc. aren't addressing the issue of providing better and more equal access to the river valley for those with mobility issues ( incl. those with baby strollers, etc.).
    Last edited by KC; 08-04-2015 at 01:11 PM.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lat View Post
    Didn't see this article posted. It has some information the journal article didn't have.

    At first glance, I didn't like this, but there isn't enough good info for me to fall squarely into that camp. Also, taking advantage of the money available is attractive. It would be better to have no strings attached to the $, but the funding is what it is, apparently...

    http://www.630ched.com/2015/04/08/pl...r-ready-to-go/

    Time’s ticking on the $24 million system that would start near the Hotel MacDonald and run into Louise McKinney Park. It’ll be done through the River Valley Alliance, which got it’s hands on federal and provincial funding. The catch is, construction has to start soon, to be completed by 2017, or else that funding goes away.

    “What’s really good about it the city of Edmonton taxpayer directly is not putting in all that much money,” Marchak said. “It’s kind of one of those rare opportunities when the timing and the money has come together. If we don’t use the money on this it does get returned to the funders and we don’t have it available for any other project.”

    “The alignment that we’re proposing comes at a bit of angle to the hill, which allows us to lay it quite tight into the hill so it doesn’t stand out in any major way, but fits quite nicely with in the slopes.”
    Seeing this drawing makes me think the city is getting a grand new staircase with a funicular thrown in.

    People against this proposal but for more staircases, etc. aren't addressing the issue of providing better and more equal access to the river valley for those with mobility issues ( incl. those with baby strollers, etc.).
    People will get used to it. The funds are there, we use them or lose them. I hope they put a bike ramp along the stairs so people can still choose to walk their bikes up the step.

  52. #52
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    There's a parking lot at the bottom of this particular hill, and there are bus stops at the bottom here too, plus there's the SCC Funicular/elevator. In this location more access isn't worth nearly that much money.

  53. #53
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    It was at EDC last night.

    Personally, I like the idea. Basically KC is right, this provides better and more equal access to the river valley for those with mobility issues.

    It will enhance an already well used trail from the Hotel McDonald down to the river valley and provide a far nicer experience than what currently exists, and accessible by all.

  54. #54

    Default

    Hopefully it doesn't turn into an LRT escalator like fiasco.

    Also hopefully they tie this into larger rivery valley and pedestrian/cycling strategies.

  55. #55

    Default

    Judging from the perspective on the buildings in the render, it looks like it will come down to somewhere around here:

    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5390...No8I_Tt18w!2e0

    Not a fan of the location. at all. But they may have other development plans for the area immediately east of this?

  56. #56
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    It's at a very early stage, there are lots of moving parts to the design including final orientation and connections.

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    It was at EDC last night.

    Personally, I like the idea. Basically KC is right, this provides better and more equal access to the river valley for those with mobility issues.

    It will enhance an already well used trail from the Hotel McDonald down to the river valley and provide a far nicer experience than what currently exists, and accessible by all.

    Sad as it is, people generally bias their judgement from their own personal, limited, often selfish perspective and needs.

    Ask a parent with a young child in a stroller and maybe another toddler or two if another staircase would help them enjoy the river valley more and I doubt they would see it as helpful. Oh, just load them on a bus. Yeah right.

    Or ask an old couple, maybe one with failing knees, hips, lungs if a better bike trail or another staircase would help them. I imagine what happens instead is that the husband or wife most in need of getting out more, just stays at home while the spouse goes for walks down into the valley.

    Ask someone in a wheelchair if they have great access to the river valley from downtown. Book a DATS bus the day before and arrange to meet your friend at the bottom - at 6 pm maybe.

    Though there may be a bit of reality here with knocking this proposal. The downtown being as anti-family as it is.

  58. #58

    Default

    Nice image by the artist



    Reality sucks...


    on my Flickr

    on my Flickr

    No park like setting. At the bottom is a busy interchange. Lovely weeds, summer and winter.

    on my Flickr

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

  59. #59
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,977

    Default

    KC, I think the issue isn't that it will help those groups down from the top, but what are we helping them to? What's the destination at the bottom?

    As someone else mentioned, wouldn't this be better used on the South side of the river to take people down to the Kinsman? There's a destination there.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lat View Post
    Judging from the perspective on the buildings in the render, it looks like it will come down to somewhere around here:

    https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5390...No8I_Tt18w!2e0

    Not a fan of the location. at all. But they may have other development plans for the area immediately east of this?
    Look at your link. Grubby location at the forefront to downtown with a totally unkempt ROW by the COE. They violate their own noxious weed policies and cannot maintain what they have now. The image on your link was taken in June and the gutters are not swept, the curbs all broken and the place is a total mess.

    When you Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer need to mow the lawn and trim the hedge, instead build a swimming pool?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 08-04-2015 at 02:10 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  61. #61

    Default

    There is no destination and we want the non-existant destination to be universally accessible? At least the 104street one had the opportunity for development at the bottom, what could possibly be done in this area? I'm so confused

  62. #62
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    City's portion of the $24 million......$500,000, looks like the typical knee jerk reactions on here lol, haters going to hate I guess.

  63. #63

    Default

    ^^ Plus they are taking away the pedestrian bridge. What a farce...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perspective View Post
    There is no destination and we want the non-existant destination to be universally accessible? At least the 104street one had the opportunity for development at the bottom, what could possibly be done in this area? I'm so confused
    Aren't there a lot of longer-term plans for the chosen destination area? Boat docks etc.

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Aren't there a lot of longer-term plans for the chosen destination area? Boat docks etc.
    Boat docks are unsuitable on the current side of the river. Boat docks are not 4 season attraction.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
    City's portion of the $24 million......$500,000, looks like the typical knee jerk reactions on here lol, haters going to hate I guess.
    The upfront bill of goods may seem cheap, but wait until you see how much operation and maintenance will be. This is not a good investment.

    I would actually rather the feds kept the money instead of gracing us with a legacy project that will cost us significantly down the line with no long term tangible benefit.

    We should spend $24M of our own money to put attractions in the valley instead of using free money on this.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  67. #67
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,297

    Default

    https://twitter.com/vineshpratap/sta...79070665113600
    vinesh pratap ‏@vineshpratap 36m36 minutes ago
    Feedback session on proposed funicular underway at city hall until 2 and then from 4 to 8.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
    City's portion of the $24 million......$500,000, looks like the typical knee jerk reactions on here lol, haters going to hate I guess.
    The Fort Road TOD redevelopment was supposed supposed to have a net cost to the COE of $503,500 in the Administration's 2002 proposal.

    How well did that project work?



    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...aster_Plan.pdf
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 08-04-2015 at 02:48 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  69. #69

    Default

    Is it possible there are plans for pathway conectivity at bottom of funicular? And included in the grant money?

  70. #70
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    The current 'plan' has a viewing platform jutting out above the road ROW and current pathways, towards the river. With plans to connect down to the river valley pathways, and the road ROW multi-use-trails.

  71. #71

    Default

    I understand the need to be inclusive for people with mobility issues, but I'm pretty skeptical this is good use of money. I hope I'm proved wrong.

  72. #72

    Default

    Ok, maybe this is 100% unrealistic, but imagine they closed a section of River Valley Road underneath funicular and SCC lookouts, and put some picnic tables and grills there. At least there would be motivation for people with mobility issues to go down there.

  73. #73

    Default

    Stunned that I like this.

    Stunned that others are opposed.

    This is about accessibility to what the Valley is and should be.

    Really don't like those "well LMP should be our Eaux Claire Market/The Forks" concepts which seem completely insecure or unaware about the potential advantages of the River Valley.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  74. #74

    Default

    ^ and the challenges.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  75. #75

    Default

    $24M for 55 meters of funicular = $430,000,000/km

    What makes this more expensive than building a LRT line underground?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  76. #76
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    ^ if the City is only paying $500,000 of the $24 million, why wouldn't you do it???

    “What’s really good about it the city of Edmonton taxpayer directly is not putting in all that much money,” Marchak said. “It’s kind of one of those rare opportunities when the timing and the money has come together. If we don’t use the money on this it does get returned to the funders and we don’t have it available for any other project.”
    http://www.630ched.com/2015/04/08/pl...r-ready-to-go/

  77. #77
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    $24M for 55 meters of funicular = $430,000,000/km

    What makes this more expensive than building a LRT line underground?
    Because this project isn't just 55m of funicular. Let's not use straw-men here. You can disagree with the project, but use actual facts, not misrepresentations.

  78. #78
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    $24M for 55 meters of funicular = $430,000,000/km

    What makes this more expensive than building a LRT line underground?
    Because this project isn't just 55m of funicular. Let's not use straw-men here. You can disagree with the project, but use actual facts, not misrepresentations.
    Why would he start using facts now???

  79. #79

    Default

    I walk across the Ft. Edmonton and Laurier footbridges every so often. Did the Ft. Edmonton one a couple days ago. (Also climbed hundreds of stairs in and out of the Westridge/Wolf Willow valley entrances. Can't imagine anyone with even a simple knee problem doing very well at those climbs.) Now those bridges are wonderful structures. Cost per user, even now, must be astronomical. Over time though that per user cost will fall. Nonetheless those bridges cost a few millions to build to simply allow people to cross the river. Why was that necessary? People can drive or take a bus to Ft. Edmonton, etc. One side of the river is pretty much like the other....

    Anyone recall how much those foot bridges cost to build?
    Last edited by KC; 08-04-2015 at 04:23 PM.

  80. #80

    Default

    So out of curiousity, I'm overlooking where the funicular will be, right now. From the rendering, and looking down (south) it looks like the new staircase and funicular will be angled slighly left, towards the SCC.

    My first impression, is the city on crack??
    - pedestrian access top of Bellamy Hill is terrible
    - bottom of staircase leads to SCC parking lot, and the spaghetti mess of Low Level Bridge and River Valley Road
    - go up hill again and you're at Louis McKinney park, which already has a parking lot

    However once you negotiate the ped un-friendly road system, go down another short set of stairs, you're along the River Valley trails, which are much more pleasant and worth going down to visit.

    More later...

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    $24M for 55 meters of funicular = $430,000,000/km

    What makes this more expensive than building a LRT line underground?
    Because this project isn't just 55m of funicular. Let's not use straw-men here. You can disagree with the project, but use actual facts, not misrepresentations.
    Definition of a straw man argument includes "A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument."

    Are you uninformed? If not, then the straw man argument accusation is inaccurate. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

    Arguing that the money is free is false. It is our tax dollars that we pay into each year in federal and provincial coffers. Just because money is there does not mean we should spend it on this project or in this location. Want to improve access, use the money to buy more DATS buses .

    So what are the extras that make the project so expensive? Are the stairs made of gold? I honestly would like to know.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 08-04-2015 at 04:43 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  82. #82
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    $24M for 55 meters of funicular = $430,000,000/km

    What makes this more expensive than building a LRT line underground?
    Because this project isn't just 55m of funicular. Let's not use straw-men here. You can disagree with the project, but use actual facts, not misrepresentations.
    Definition of a straw man argument includes "A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument."

    Are you uninformed? If not, then the straw man argument accusation is inaccurate.
    It's not inaccurate as your audience includes more than just me. Several of which may be far more uniformed than I am.

  83. #83
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,458

    Default

    Fully in favor - however I have some capacity concerns. I think this will be overrun and there will be long wait times at both the top and the bottom on nice days.

    Love the idea of a grand staircase.

    Hopefully the city will put some thought in at the bottom of this with landscaping and traffic calming measures.

  84. #84
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I want to see what they plan to do at the bottom, to make it a place. If there will be something done to make it less of a disaster of parkway loops, to make it a real place, i might be able to get on board. Otherwise, I can think of many better ways to spend the money.

    -make the paths along river valley road wide enough to be usable on nice summer days.
    -Upgrade more paved paths to be actually flat, and maybe a few gravel paths to be actually asphalt.
    -Funicular on fort hill road or similar to kinsmen
    -Cable car up-down-up.
    -Tack a public elevator to the side of the high-level bridge, and several of the half-exposed parkades.

    ???

  85. #85

    Default

    For those arguing the mobility aspect. OK fine...you could pay someone 100K a year and get a 100K passenger van and still come out ahead in 100 years later compared to this proposal. It would probably be quicker too than this slow moving elevator. By the way....does anyone know why the city can't even maintain the LRT escalators to work 1/3rd of the time?

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Hopefully the city will put some thought in at the bottom of this with landscaping and traffic calming measures.
    Project creep.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I want to see what they plan to do at the bottom, to make it a place. If there will be something done to make it less of a disaster of parkway loops, to make it a real place, i might be able to get on board. Otherwise, I can think of many better ways to spend the money.

    -make the paths along river valley road wide enough to be usable on nice summer days.
    -Upgrade more paved paths to be actually flat, and maybe a few gravel paths to be actually asphalt.
    -Funicular on fort hill road or similar to kinsmen
    -Cable car up-down-up.
    -Tack a public elevator to the side of the high-level bridge, and several of the half-exposed parkades.

    ???
    What amazes me is the number of people who use Kinsmen Park in the summer and the number of cars in the parking lot all year long. This is an established destination with handicapped accessible facilities and activities in the river valley that has limited accessibility issues with the neighbourhood in Strathcona. If you want to build a funicular, then from 109th St. To Kinsmen is the ideal site. I don't understand why the other sites were ever even considered.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  88. #88
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Fully in favor - however I have some capacity concerns. I think this will be overrun and there will be long wait times at both the top and the bottom on nice days.

    Love the idea of a grand staircase.

    Hopefully the city will put some thought in at the bottom of this with landscaping and traffic calming measures.
    Capacity concerns? Mmhmm
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I want to see what they plan to do at the bottom, to make it a place. If there will be something done to make it less of a disaster of parkway loops, to make it a real place, i might be able to get on board. Otherwise, I can think of many better ways to spend the money.

    <snip>
    In a city where pedestrians and mobility-challenged have been neglected for so long, I think we can all think of ways to spend the money. Still, this is where the money is, so it's this or nothing.

    I agree the city has to deal with the parkway loop fiasco. This funicular simply can't dump the mobility challenged out on River Valley Road and expect them to negotiate the rest of the way.

    And then there needs to be some kind of plan what's going to happen for future development in that section of the River Valley. Otherwise it's oh Granny, look at the lovely water! Isn't it nice? Ok great, now lets go back up the funicular and never ever go back down it again.

    Ok, the trails along the waterfront are nice and all, but right now they come to a sudden end in Rossdale. There's no wayfinding. There's nowhere to even buy an ice-cream or a coffee. The little boardwalk section that goes towards the Cloverdale pedestrian bridge but doesn't quite make it is pretty, but there's nothing there, no reason to go there unless you're passing by it on a run or a bike ride. The other side of the Low-Level bridge with another urban parkway spaghetti nightmare does not look inviting.

    So for $24million plus operating expenses, who exactly are we building this for and what do we expect them to do when they use it?
    Last edited by Snake Eyes; 08-04-2015 at 10:55 PM.

  90. #90

    Default City moving forward on planned restaurant in Louise McKinney Park

    This ties into the overall plan for LMP I think...

    The proposed restaurant is part of a larger makeover project at the park, which will eventually include a new outdoor plaza, updated staircases and pathways down to the river, and landscaping.

    The new restaurant is likely to open in about two years.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...park-1.2895673
    Last edited by lat; 08-04-2015 at 11:13 PM.

  91. #91

    Default

    ^

    If the restaurant is near the water, this will make a little more sense. Also if they factor in Rossdale development opportunities.

  92. #92
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    It's not this or nothing. It's earmarked for river valley access, there could be hundreds of ways to spend it on that...

    If it goes to nowhere then it probably won't even be worth the maintenance costs.

  93. #93

    Default

    ^ My understanding is that 2/3s of the funding is specifically earmarked for this project, and it must be completed by 2017.

  94. #94
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I can't argue the time-limit, but wasn't it earlier going to be at funicular, and then a cable-car to rossdale? That makes me think that it's earmarked for something more open, like for "improving river valley access in central Edmonton"

  95. #95
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,593

    Default

    Well I like the idea in principle, and if a large chunk of it is being paid by other levels of government than might as well get something out of this money. What I really would like to see, as I think most here would like to see, is where exactly is this going to end up in the valley. Now if they can improve park space or have amenities that will encourage people to come down into the valley as well as entice residents who live in that general area of Rossdale to use this to get into the downtown easier than great. I want to see more of what this will truly look like though first.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  96. #96
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,593

    Default

    Ok, I just answered some of my own questions this evening as I came across a couple PDF's from the city.

    Proposed East Alignment
    Proposed West Alignment

    Personally I like the east alignment way better. It gives much more options to go somewhere where as the west alignment brings you right to an area surrounded by road.

    I would love to see the east alignment but also at the bottom they could extend the boardwalk at Louis McKinney Park and create a really nice connection that people could take a very nice stroll from downtown to the park and the amenities planned for LMP.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  97. #97
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    342

    Default

    “It will not go over budget. It will not be a penny more.”

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch...tml?rel=847766
    It's not EIA it's YEG

  98. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Eyes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I want to see what they plan to do at the bottom, to make it a place. If there will be something done to make it less of a disaster of parkway loops, to make it a real place, i might be able to get on board. Otherwise, I can think of many better ways to spend the money.

    <snip>
    In a city where pedestrians and mobility-challenged have been neglected for so long, I think we can all think of ways to spend the money. Still, this is where the money is, so it's this or nothing.

    I agree the city has to deal with the parkway loop fiasco. This funicular simply can't dump the mobility challenged out on River Valley Road and expect them to negotiate the rest of the way.

    And then there needs to be some kind of plan what's going to happen for future development in that section of the River Valley. Otherwise it's oh Granny, look at the lovely water! Isn't it nice? Ok great, now lets go back up the funicular and never ever go back down it again.

    Ok, the trails along the waterfront are nice and all, but right now they come to a sudden end in Rossdale. There's no wayfinding. There's nowhere to even buy an ice-cream or a coffee. The little boardwalk section that goes towards the Cloverdale pedestrian bridge but doesn't quite make it is pretty, but there's nothing there, no reason to go there unless you're passing by it on a run or a bike ride. The other side of the Low-Level bridge with another urban parkway spaghetti nightmare does not look inviting.

    So for $24million plus operating expenses, who exactly are we building this for and what do we expect them to do when they use it?

    I agree. The top of the funicular is a difficult place to bring Granny to with her wheelchair or walker. Where is the place to put a dozen handicapped parking spaces. I have taken my elderly parents who both use walkers to many places in the river valley and along the top of the bank but my plans all are determined by where I can park in close proximity, not for me but because my parents can only walk about 100-150m in any direction before they must stop. Tell me where I can park at a reasonable price with a 150m arc from the top of the funicular? Hint, it is easier to park at Louise McKinney Park and have direct access to the river and the gardens. From there, do you think they would be interested in a 400-500 meter trek to the funicular along a busy road? So why build a funicular?

    Even if they build a restaurant, how many people will frequent it? Busy on a nice day but not viable on a rainy day, on the many days when all there is brown snow, slush and ice and the city has not plugged the paths. Would you use it when it gets dark and go down the funicular to find the restaurant closed in a sketchy area where few people venture. One of the concerns on converting the Walterdale bridge into a restaurant was the location was not viable. This would be even a worse location so any restaurant would need lots of taxpayer subsidies to survive and there would be very limited operating hours.

    We are NOT getting this


    Read other funicular thread http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...t=21833&page=9

    For both a restaurant and a funicular, the old mantra remains the same: location, location, location. That test shows that neither idea passes the test.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 09-04-2015 at 08:04 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    Ok, I just answered some of my own questions this evening as I came across a couple PDF's from the city.

    Proposed East Alignment
    Proposed West Alignment

    Personally I like the east alignment way better. It gives much more options to go somewhere where as the west alignment brings you right to an area surrounded by road.

    I would love to see the east alignment but also at the bottom they could extend the boardwalk at Louis McKinney Park and create a really nice connection that people could take a very nice stroll from downtown to the park and the amenities planned for LMP.
    The West alignment is idiotic. Another situation where they are really only providing one option, but for optics sake, they add another that is so laughable that they are guaranteed to go with the one they want...

    The East alignment should go further east before crossing Grierson at the narrowest point, then continue south-east to the riverbank.
    Last edited by lat; 09-04-2015 at 08:08 AM.

  100. #100
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,410

    Default

    I like the East Alignment more too. One thing that would help is bridging the gap across MacDougall Hill. I know that there's supposed to be a bridge in the future, but I think it would be nice to connect with the Telus Plaza walkway.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... 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
  •