Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 761

Thread: River Valley Mechanized Access/Funicular | Under Construction

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    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
    The only way this will have capacity issues is if it's designed for zero passengers. Even then, it will fit the bill the bulk of the time.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  2. #102

    Default

    Paula Simons column in the Journal today reminds me that dumb ideas can metastasize. Funicular = $1 million for useless temporary structures in Churchill Square as a "festival".

  3. #103

    Default

    ^ Provide security??? How much is that going to cost per year?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  4. #104
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    ^^^nor do we have a sizeable portion of our city below it AND 38018032108301298 tourists a year.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thegongshow View Post
    “It will not go over budget. It will not be a penny more.”

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch...tml?rel=847766
    A viewing platform seems lame but then I don't know what the endpoint in like. Ending among a thickly treed area would be a huge difference for viewers leaving behind the concrete and glass dominating the top of the valley. Still, future plans need to provide people with proper access to the riverbank trail system. (People with strollers, in electric wheel chairs, etc could then easily take to the paths.)

    A further excerpt:

    "Marchak says the funicular mechanism itself, on its 55-metre track, with its 25-metre drop, will cost about $5 million."

    "The other $19 million is for the associated elements: a gently sloping six-metre-wide boardwalk with a lane for runners, a pedestrian bridge across road below, and scenic viewing platforms. Marchak says the hope is to make the structure a destination in its own right, an urban gathering place. While the city will be responsible for paying for any cost overruns, Marchak insists there won’t be any.

    “It will not go over budget. It will not be a penny more.”
    Last edited by KC; 09-04-2015 at 09:36 AM.

  6. #106

    Default

    I have a better idea.

    Lets make a funicular that is more accessible directly from Jasperf Avenue. Maybe with a pedestrian bridge across Grierson Hill road with access to Louise McKinney Park. Maybe we should also have an escalator beside it and a staircase and put the whole thing indoors so we can use it all year round and have security even windows to look out when the weather is bad. Maybe we can add a waterfall and plants...


    http://www.planetware.com/tourist-at...cdn-ab-abe.htm

    WHAT! You mean we already have one less than 300 meters away! I thought that the proposed funicular would be the only one in Alberta???

    IMHO, move it to Kinsmen or don't build it at all.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I have a better idea.

    Lets make a funicular that is more accessible directly from Jasperf Avenue. Maybe with a pedestrian bridge across Grierson Hill road with access to Louise McKinney Park. Maybe we should also have an escalator beside it and a staircase and put the whole thing indoors so we can use it all year round and have security even windows to look out when the weather is bad. Maybe we can add a waterfall and plants...


    http://www.planetware.com/tourist-at...cdn-ab-abe.htm

    WHAT! You mean we already have one less than 300 meters away! I thought that the proposed funicular would be the only one in Alberta???

    IMHO, move it to Kinsmen or don't build it at all.
    And while it's only a distant memory to me, if anyone can pull up an original proposal for the Convention Centre I'm certain you will not see a "viewing platform" terminus sitting over top of the Grierson Hill road but instead a continuation of the building down the hill towards the riverbank. Finish that by adding the funicular there and finish what was started*.


    *Note: It seems to be the story of our lives. Grand but unfinished proposals leaving a legacy of opportunity lost. Then we rip up stuff or ignore preliminary work and build new decades later. Think of the wide roads down 107th ave around 149th street, bridge embankments downtown and near refinery row, an LRT that goes nowhere for decades... )

  8. #108

    Default

    ^ the new proposal does not put the funicular any closer to the river.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    ^ the new proposal does not put the funicular any closer to the river.
    As I said - half-fast attempts leave us with opportunity lost and early promises never properly fulfilled.

    The convention centre went way over budget so we likely cut back on delivering the Full Monty. That's what happens when we go through budgetary bait and switch processes with low ball bids to get approval and then scale-backs to deal with the inevitable reality. It's sad when the accountant/bean counter mind-set rules at the wrong times.


    Funiculì, Funiculà
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zquMgKUrdT8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvKWrzBnDEs

    I went up this evening, Nanetta
    Do you know where? Do you know where?
    Where your hard heart can't reach
    With scornful wiles! With scornful wiles!
    Where the fire burns, but if you run
    You can escape it! You can escape it!
    It doesn't chase you nor destroy you
    Just by a look. Just by a look.
    (Chorus)
    Come on, come on! To the top we'll go!
    Come on, come on! To the top we'll go!
    Funiculi, funicula, funiculi, funicula!
    To the top we'll go, funiculi, funicula!
    It's climbed aloft, see, climbed aloft now,
    Right to the top! Right to the top!
    It went, and turned, and came back down,
    And now it's stopped! And now it's stopped!
    The top is turning round and round,
    Around yourself! Around yourself!
    My heart sings that on such a day
    We should be wed! We should be wed!
    (Chorus)

    I know some guys that once stood in a ski lineup and start humming this song to some older lady's delight and then start singing the words to the alternate version "Last night I stayed up late to..."
    Last edited by KC; 09-04-2015 at 10:52 AM.

  10. #110
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton, AB Canada
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Funicular Edmonton will be a real challenge. I think that we can bring the Edmonton Queen boat to the North side of the river then construct the funicular from this point up the hill to either Shaw Conference BLDG or have the escalator in the conference center be part of the Funicular.

  11. #111

    Default

    So consensus? Without more details how this will fit into a larger River Valley plan and a breakdown of operational costs, I would say NO and tell the Feds to keep their money.

  12. #112

    Default

    Why did the alignment move so far east? I remember the original was on 104st and took you to "rossdale"

    at least that took you from somewhere to a potential somewhere. This one takes you from no-where (that stretch at the top of mcdougall is an awful austere area) to an area that is extremely limited to properly develop

  13. #113
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Spot on, Perspective. If we absolutely have to have a monorail, let's put it somewhere useful.

    Ideal spot is connecting Rossdale to the top of the hill. That could jump-start development in the area.

    No idea why the clowns downtown want to put the monorail in such a ridiculous place.

  14. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    No idea why the clowns downtown want to put the monorail in such a ridiculous place.
    Because monorail.

  15. #115
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,410

    Default

    Idea for old pedestrian bridges at Connors Road and Cloverdale: use the old bridge structures for pedestrian/bike bridges in Rossdale. The first one could replace he crosswalk between the Grierson Hill and MacDougall Hill bridges (below the staircase). This could also connect with the funicular. The second one could cross MacDougall hill and connect with the lower bridge and Telus Plaza.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  16. #116

    Default

    East.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  17. #117
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^^ I like that idea, if the existing bridge structures are close enough to the length of the other spans that need bridging. It's not like pedestrian bridges are even close to the same cost as a car bridge, but it would be cool to keep things around.

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Eyes View Post
    So consensus? Without more details how this will fit into a larger River Valley plan and a breakdown of operational costs, I would say NO and tell the Feds to keep their money.
    I think it's awesome.

    I know some are hell bent on putting commercial in the Valley, but this that this isn't about that.

    It's just accessiblising a highly arduous segment of the bike, hike, jogging infrastructure. It gives a great option for walkers, cyclists or joggers to either originate from or visit downtown, for example makes Mill Creek Ravine to Low Level to Downtown become a realistic commute.

    The funicular isn't the attraction in itself, it's the route network. This is one key missing piece.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  19. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement 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.
    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.
    The main difference is that the SCC is locked at night and on holidays and access can be restricted during the day as well.

  20. #120

    Default

    ^ Then why can't the city partner in some fashion with SCC and pay to keep the escalators open for public use at various times? Sounds like a much cheaper solution.

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    ^ Then why can't the city partner in some fashion with SCC and pay to keep the escalators open for public use at various times? Sounds like a much cheaper solution.
    Maybe turn the SCC into more of a general daytime/nighttime destination itself by developing and integrating something downhill of it.

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement 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.
    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.
    The main difference is that the SCC is locked at night and on holidays and access can be restricted during the day as well.
    Aren't all parks including river valley trails closed from 11pm-5am?
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  23. #123
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,588

    Default

    Well maybe there is a guideline for people to not go there at certain times but as we all know if one of us wanted to take a walk to a park or especially the river valley trails at 1 in the morning there is nothing to stop any of us.

    I like the funicular idea and stair case to go along with it to the east configuration. I say connect the river walk to where the funicular will make it down to the valley base, then also bring the river walk under the Low Level bridge to be able to connect it with the Rossdale area west of the Low Level.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  24. #124
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    edmonton+halifax+vancouver
    Posts
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    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
    That sketch is of the pedestrian bridge that takes the user far south of all the roads and immediately overtop of the lowest paved trail (the one that connects to rossdale and the Louise McKinney promenade). The entire concept is based on 'erasing' that horrid landscape in your photos (that one we currently have to cross via crosswalks) by taking the user over it on a high-line like experience and into the trees on the river's edge. It terminates in a cantilevered look-out reminiscent inspired by the one found at glacier skywalk (albeit very scaled down of course). The 24 million also includes the ample terrace at the top (that would support food carts etc) and a social stair with various scales of platforms and fitness tracks built in.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme..._alignment.pdf

    Hope that clears things up a tiny bit.
    Last edited by whyteknight; 12-04-2015 at 12:30 PM.
    "By its nature, the metropolis provides what otherwise could be given only by traveling; namely, the strange." --J.J.

  25. #125

    Default

    Well, with it practically funded, the city pretty well has no choice but to build this. Turn it into an opportunity to accelerate the Rossdale revitalization.

  26. #126

    Default

    If they want to make this work they will have to build the canal near the bottom of the funicular. Those two features along with developed residential, recreational and commercial amenities might make the combined development viable.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  27. #127
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    ^ Then why can't the city partner in some fashion with SCC and pay to keep the escalators open for public use at various times? Sounds like a much cheaper solution.
    Partner with? Don't we (indirectly) own the place?

  28. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whyteknight View Post
    That sketch is of the pedestrian bridge that takes the user far south of all the roads and immediately overtop of the lowest paved trail (the one that connects to rossdale and the Louise McKinney promenade). The entire concept is based on 'erasing' that horrid landscape in your photos (that one we currently have to cross via crosswalks) by taking the user over it on a high-line like experience and into the trees on the river's edge. It terminates in a cantilevered look-out reminiscent inspired by the one found at glacier skywalk (albeit very scaled down of course). The 24 million also includes the ample terrace at the top (that would support food carts etc) and a social stair with various scales of platforms and fitness tracks built in.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme..._alignment.pdf

    Hope that clears things up a tiny bit.
    My point was that the COE does not and seems incapable of maintaining and have no budget for doing so on what they have already built yet seem hell bent on building more infrastructure that will fall into disrepair, lack of snow removal, no security etc. Just look at the weeds and lack of even cleaning the streets of sand in the pictures. Look also at LRT elevators and escalators that are down for long periods. How will the funicular fare?

    Sorry that I am so jaded but the COE does not maintain even simple things.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  29. #129
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,588

    Default

    The way I understand the deal is that there is a bunch of money that the feds and the province want to spend on a project like this. If the city accepts it and gets it built than great. If the city rejects this deal the money doesn't still come to the city for another project, it goes back to the feds and province and then they can decided to spend it wherever they want, maybe still here in Edmonton, or Calgary, or Red Deer, or Banff... the list goes on.

    I say if our options are use it or lose it, I say use it.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  30. #130

    Default

    Location, location, location.

    IMHO, if you are going to build, place the grand staircase on the East location but put the funicular behind Kinsmen Recreation Centre.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  31. #131

    Default

    Well I haven't been very positive about the funicular in this thread, mostly accepting it as inevitable but not much more.

    Well today I went for a long bike ride and commuted back through Mill Creek Ravine, for the first time. I have to say, if the funicular was there it would have been very welcome at that point and I definitely would have used it.

    I feel a little more positive about it now. It's still just one piece into the Rossdale/River Valley puzzle, but I see more potential.

  32. #132

    Default

    ^ About that hill, I don't know if it's worse going up or going down. There was a much publicised cyclist death there around 1992 or so. Sent a real chill through the City.

    Plus it's probably the best access point for downtown by around half of the South Side, including the highly popular and accessible Mill Creek Ravine.


    ^^ If it were me, as I mentioned above, I'd serve both Kinsmen and Rossdale with a bus loop also hitting Corona Station (the entrance at First Edmonton Place, with the elevator), the Legislature and the High Level Diner. Imagine a ride over both our most recognisable bridges thrown in for good measure - it would be part of the attraction.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  33. #133
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    Funicular should be built below Hotel Macdonald, report says


    BY GORDON KENT, EDMONTON JOURNAL

    EDMONTON - It will be faster to walk into the river valley on existing stairs than take the proposed $24-million funicular, a new city report says.

    Riding the inclined lift below the Hotel Macdonald, walking along a promenade and taking an elevator will last three minutes and 44 seconds, says a report released Thursday.

    Going down the current wooden steps is 30 seconds shorter, while ignoring the mechanized equipment and travelling on the wide, new “urban staircase” clocks in under three minutes.

    But the report says the funicular, which would cost $475,000 a year to run and maintain, will provide more benefits than just transportation.

    These include creating a landmark that links downtown to the North Saskatchewan River while accommodating people with mobility problems.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Funic...880/story.html
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  34. #134

    Default

    As someone who just scaled the top of Commonwealth Stadium three times yesterday, I think it should be pointed out that while going down might only take 30 seconds on the stairs (which I don't believe anyways) it is a lot harder going up!

    And throw a bike into the discussion and stairs get a heck of a lot harder in both directions.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  35. #135

    Default

    Cost for funicular in the Edmonton River Valley rises
    Ryan Tumilty, Metro

    Edmonton’s proposed funicular into the river valley could cost as much as $33 million and won’t be ready for a 2017 target date.

    [...]

    City staff now estimate the project will cost somewhere between $21.5 million and $33 million, with a more precise cost still hard to pinpoint.

    The project, which would include a bridge over Grierson Hill Road, is to be funded through a grant with the River Valley Alliance and the federal government each picking up a third of the cost.

    Coun. Scott McKeen said he worried about the higher costs and thinks council might have to rethink it.

    “That’s a lot of money,” he said. “I think council needs to have another rumpus on this one.”

    Coun. Ben Henderson said to walk away from the project council would be letting money go.
    http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/13...-valley-rises/

  36. #136
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    $475,000/365 = 1300 / say $2 each way = 650 rides a day to break even.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  37. #137

    Default

    Lemme translate: "This will be a dog but since other levels of gov't are paying for it, we'll recommend building it anyway."

    What a waste of taxes. Seriously, I don't care if Brampton gets some new flowers instead of us getting a funicular or whatever, this is just a huge white elephant.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  38. #138

    Default

    The NAIT LRT line was shovel ready and "free" money.

    Was it the best idea or should we have looked at alternatives?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #139

    Default

    Not much of a comparison really. NAIT LRT was shovel ready because it was something that was fully planned out and deemed necessary. This funicular had no detailed plans and there is much debate as to its need...

  40. #140
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    Buying a mini-van just because there are mini-van grants out there is still no reason to buy a mini-van.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  41. #141

    Default

    At least you can later sell the mini-van if you have no use for it anymore or it costs too much to maintain. Anybody want to buy a used $33M funicular on eBay?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  42. #142

    Default

    Questionable statements

    It will be faster to walk into the river valley on existing stairs than take the proposed $24-million funicular, a new city report says.
    I highly doubt that the many joggers will use it. Sort of defeats the purpose of jogging. Best reason to get exercise and promote fitness, use the stairs, its faster...

    Work won’t be finished until summer 2017, well past a federal deadline of January 2017, so the River Valley Alliance is asking for an extension.
    Oh Oh... Haven't even started and it is already past a deadline. Have we heard this before?

    Coun. Scott McKeen said he’d like to see it carry pedestrians from somewhere they can park, and he’s concerned about the operating costs
    Parking is a huge accessibility issue.

    “I think this is a once-in-a-lifetime enhancement to the city.”
    Every project in front of Council is a once-in-a-lifetime enhancement.

    Counts done last summer found about 800 people use this route on an average weekday, the report says.

    A consultant estimated demand could reach 350 to 400 users an hour by 2044.
    Of those 800 users, is that one way trips or 2 way trips?
    Of the 3,000 to 4,000 daily demand estimated in 2044, how many will rather take the stairs? Again, one way or two way trips?
    How many will be handicapped, which is the main reason for this project? 1%?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  43. #143
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    Of the 800, how many are doing so for exercise or activity?
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    $475,000/365 = 1300 / say $2 each way = 650 rides a day to break even.
    Was there going to be a charge to use it? When 16 people get on, how would you collect fares?

    Any charge would drastically reduce usage IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Of the 800, how many are doing so for exercise or activity?
    Is that 800 on a sunny day on the weekend or on a Monday dead of winter @-20C?

    My guess is they took the first example and extrapolated it. I seriously doubt their numbers.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  45. #145
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    ^I'd expect a small token fee, if not great but even worse from a viability issue.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  46. #146

    Default

    ^ East alignment makes a lot more sense and gives much more room for development (access to water, some sort of water path, etc.)

    West alignment...looks like a place they should be putting a gas station or something.

    I understand the logic of the City on this project. Biggest bang for you money since the funding is there. But there is ONE potential problem, notwithstanding the destination to nowhere. What if we can't complete it by 2017!?! Does that mean we need to pay back all the money we used and will have some half completed mess?

    (Sorry, since the LRT & bridge fiasco, I have no faith that we can complete a project without a construction hitch)

  47. #147

    Default

    Coun. Scott McKeen said he’d like to see it carry pedestrians from somewhere they can park,
    Stupidest thing I've heard all debate.

    This is completing a non-driving route network through the river Valley, not adding ancillary parking to Downtown.

    Completely wrong-headed, Scott.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  48. #148
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    With true separated grade bike lanes protected by a median running at about $1 million per km (http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/09/1...-per-kilometre), I would say it is a better idea to run 500m of world-class bike lanes every year (about the distance from 109 to 104 on Jasper) than this ridiculous monorail.

    Half a km of bike lanes would have a far better impact than a funicular.

  49. #149

    Default

    ^ whatever one thinks of the funicular, that money isn't available for bike routes (which I also strongly support, BTW.)
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  50. #150
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Right right, because it is not "earmarked" for bike lanes. Of course.

    Oldest political trick in the book.

  51. #151

    Default

    What would it take to decouple this funding from the funicular?

  52. #152

    Default

    ^^ Politics or bureaucracy or whatever, it is what it is.

    I don't like how the feds railroaded the Valley Line into a P3 either, but either they and their funds are on board or they and their are not. Talk to that level.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  53. #153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lat View Post
    What would it take to decouple this funding from the funicular?
    A federal election result.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  54. #154
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The grant comes from the Feds (who seem to love wasting money on garbage like this while letting our necessary infrastructure rot), so that won't be decoupled.

    The municipality will be servicing the funicular though if I read it correctly, which means all it would take to free up $450k a year from not building the damn thing.

    Oh yeah, and 1/3 of the cost will be covered by the muni, so at the $25 mil mark which is a mid-range estimate (http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/13...-valley-rises/) that leaves $8.25M for bike lanes. That would run grade separated, median protected bike lanes the length of downtown along Jasper.

    Sure, you "give up" 2/3 of the funding for it, but in reality that saves you money long term because you don't have to pay to operate it.

    I say turn down the funding, use the 8.25 million on bike lanes, and invest 450k a year more in bike lanes that you would have otherwise spent on operation.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 12-06-2015 at 12:58 PM.

  55. #155

    Default

    ^ but it's not garbage. Mill Creek Ravine is a perfect (the best) shallow-grade collector from a huge (the single largest) swath of the South Side, and this completes the Journey downtown (or vice versa, of course.)

    I really, seriously, don't see a better way to connect Southside cyclists Downtown, or anywhere else across the River.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  56. #156
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    it's for river valley access, so an attempt to use the money to enhance:

    -Some of the existing staircases with more rest points.

    -the Muttart/Cloverdale future LRT station, with nice wide, low-slope paths from the station to the river's edge and the future replaced footbridge.

    -Bus stops on existing river valley routes, at the low-level bridge, kinsmen, Emily Murphy/Hawrelak and Rossdale and Riverdale so you don't have to wait right next to a busy road, and so that you can get onto a path or an inproved sidewalk separated by a wide boulevard IMMEDIATELY after getting off a bus.

    -Access to the Kinnard path from Stadium Station

    -Access to the Shaw escalators/elevators to/from LMP

  57. #157
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    ^ but it's not garbage. Mill Creek Ravine is a perfect (the best) shallow-grade collector from a huge (the single largest) swath of the South Side, and this completes the Journey downtown (or vice versa, of course.)

    I really, seriously, don't see a better way to connect Southside cyclists Downtown, or anywhere else across the River.
    Is the hill the real problem from the south side, or are free-flow traffic junctions that block every otherwise decent path the bigger issue?

    If it's the hill, we could try a trondheim style cycle lift, and probably do several for the price.

  58. #158
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The City's portion isn't "for" anything. It is for whatever they budget it as.

    $8.25 million plus $450,000 every year thereafter could be spent on much more effective things.

    Sorry, Jaybee, but I have to disagree. I think it IS garbage. It is garbage because while cool, there are things that would have a far larger impact on our city that the money could be spent on. That makes it a complete mis-allocation of resources.

  59. #159

    Default

    ^^ Whatever the bigger issue, what's the smaller solution?

    Nothing against a Trondheim lift or 2, but I repeat, the steep descent from Downtown is arguably as big an issue as the climb.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  60. #160
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I don't think a lift should be a priority at all. Make a safe cycling environment first, then worry about how cyclists from afar will get there. We have plenty of people downtown already who would benefit from real, proper bike lanes.

    If this is about active transit, bike lanes would benefit a greater number of people and cover a larger range of space for the same investment. It is a no-brainer.

    Even past cycling, bike lanes are documented to create a more friendly pedestrian environment by providing separation from vehicular traffic and all the ails it brings. They are an obvious priority to reach our downtown goals.

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    The City's portion isn't "for" anything. It is for whatever they budget it as.

    $8.25 million plus $450,000 every year thereafter could be spent on much more effective things.

    Sorry, Jaybee, but I have to disagree. I think it IS garbage. It is garbage because while cool, there are things that would have a far larger impact on our city that the money could be spent on. That makes it a complete mis-allocation of resources.
    Sooner or later that link is needed. So it jumps the cue, it's still a crucial link in a future City-wide system.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  62. #162
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Later is better for a tolled system, because it will be able to pay itself down easier with a higher usage rate. Increase the core infrastructure, then worry about frills and luxuries.

  63. #163

    Default

    ^ but risk having to pay for it completely? No thanks.

    Look, I'm 100% for the core infrastructure, I think it should be accelerated, but this is part of it.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  64. #164
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    The City's portion isn't "for" anything. It is for whatever they budget it as.

    $8.25 million plus $450,000 every year thereafter could be spent on much more effective things.

    Sorry, Jaybee, but I have to disagree. I think it IS garbage. It is garbage because while cool, there are things that would have a far larger impact on our city that the money could be spent on. That makes it a complete mis-allocation of resources.
    Correct, but the rest of the funding is "for" river valley access, and I think that we could spend at least some of it on river valley access in ways that actually make sense and don't come with massive operating costs.

  65. #165
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The City pays the same amount either way. The percentage of the total is irrelevant. The discussion is:

    "Which way can we spend $8.25 million dollars plus $450,000 annually that gives us the greatest benefit".

    I certainly do not think that a funicular that might serve a couple hundred people per weekday is the greatest benefit.

    ^Again, the City's portion is not "for" anything. This is only "for" river valley access because the Federal government and RVA are mandating that to give us their thirds of the funding. The City's portion could be for whatever they budget it as - river valley access, bike lanes, staff salaries, Ralph Klein typed refund cheques, whatever they budget.

    Don't believe "earmarking" arguments. That is a political scam designed to shut down debate.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 12-06-2015 at 02:11 PM.

  66. #166

    Default

    ^ the biggest bang for the bucks is not in dispute with me, it would be flat core cycling routes.

    But conquering that grade, optimally in that location (North end of the Low Level Bridge) is a bullet we have to bite. It's a fiscal mountain whether we do it now or put it off.

    And fwiw, I highly suspect usership of 800 daily is extreme lowballing.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  67. #167

    Default

    If they must build something, build an aerial tramway/gondola system.

    I've already posted elsewhere, but a terminal jasper near central or Bay enterprise LRT station, followed by a stop at Rossdale, then a stop at End of Steel Park, and finally terminal at the used Toyota car lot on Whyte.

    Such a system would actually serve as a method of mass transportation and can fulfill mutiple objectives:

    -river valley access (to both the trails north of the river and south of the river)
    -tourist attraction (awesome river valley/ downtown views)
    -downtown to whyte avenue direct connection
    -Rossdale development connection

    Just a pipe dream of mine.

  68. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Sooner or later that link is needed. So it jumps the cue, it's still a crucial link in a future City-wide system.
    Crucial link??? I have been cycling in Edmonton for decades. There are a lot of ways to get up out of the valley without having to go straight up. I would normally come down Mill Creek, take the pedestrian bridge and then up Cameron Ave.

    Or you can take the funicular inside Shaw. Did that once and no one said anything.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  69. #169
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.ike View Post
    If they must build something, build an aerial tramway/gondola system.

    I've already posted elsewhere, but a terminal jasper near central or Bay enterprise LRT station, followed by a stop at Rossdale, then a stop at End of Steel Park, and finally terminal at the used Toyota car lot on Whyte.
    My pipedream would be a full loop tram/streetcar. Down Jasper ave, turn on 109 and cross on high level streetcar tracks, all the way down and turn on Whyte, travel down Whyte to Gateway, turn on gateway and go down the hill, cross over river by Walterdale bridge, back up hill and keep going. Only need one track because it is a continuous line. Have stops regularly along it.

    That would connect all our most dense population areas and our most lively streets. Ultra pipedream though, it will never happen.

  70. #170

    Default

    Jaerdo, you might like my comments on this recent thread http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=33297
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  71. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Sooner or later that link is needed. So it jumps the cue, it's still a crucial link in a future City-wide system.
    Crucial link??? I have been cycling in Edmonton for decades. There are a lot of ways to get up out of the valley without having to go straight up. I would normally come down Mill Creek, take the pedestrian bridge and then up Cameron Ave.

    Or you can take the funicular inside Shaw. Did that once and no one said anything.
    Oh, Cameron Avenue, you mean just a 2km detour featuring 40m of climb?

    And the last time I tried the SCC I was disallowed. Do they have a policy that states bikes can use the SCC incline anytime? That would only be a 700m detour, but do we really think we can lean 800 bikes a day on the system?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  72. #172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    And the last time I tried the SCC I was disallowed. Do they have a policy that states bikes can use the SCC incline anytime? That would only be a 700m detour, but do we really think we can lean 800 bikes a day on the system?
    with 8.5 million in upgrades they probably could

  73. #173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.ike View Post
    If they must build something, build an aerial tramway/gondola system.

    I've already posted elsewhere, but a terminal jasper near central or Bay enterprise LRT station, followed by a stop at Rossdale, then a stop at End of Steel Park, and finally terminal at the used Toyota car lot on Whyte.

    Such a system would actually serve as a method of mass transportation and can fulfill mutiple objectives:

    -river valley access (to both the trails north of the river and south of the river)
    -tourist attraction (awesome river valley/ downtown views)
    -downtown to whyte avenue direct connection
    -Rossdale development connection

    Just a pipe dream of mine.
    In the early days of c2e this was one of the first suggestions under the great ideas thread. Maybe time to revive it.

  74. #174
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,291

    Default

    Staples: New $24M staircase, funicular would be vital link to river valley trails

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...378/story.html
    “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

  75. #175
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    I am confused about this bridge they mention in the story. Where would the beginning and end be?
    be offended! figure out why later...

  76. #176

    Default

    Just over Grierson Road.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  77. #177

    Default

    a bridge over grierson, you mean like the one at shaw confer... nvm

  78. #178

    Default

    Yeah, a a funicular like it too. You know, unique to all of Albert according to the pronouncements.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  79. #179
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    I like an elevator, however there could be security issues on the lower access tunnel if it is too long.
    http://www.dezeen.com/2014/03/06/a-s...b-in-pamplona/

  80. #180
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ this does not look good to me.

  81. #181
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Less enviromental impact, essentially the only spots are the vertical hole and the tunnel entrance. A funicular impacts the river bank for it's the entire length.

    Another similar one is the Hammetschwand Lift

    http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/4713892.jpg

  82. #182
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ makes sense. maybe it was just the execution of the previous example. If they could do something that blends better into the surrounding, it would be better. It may be a good idea to incorporate with top and bottom landing cafes/ lounges. Two birds–one structure.

  83. #183
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    A few images from the engineering report, April 24,2015 from edmonton.ca









    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  84. #184
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    That walkway seems to lead literally to nowhere...
    be offended! figure out why later...

  85. #185
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Don't question it. The walkway is the perfect "vital link" so cyclists can go from the river valley to the top of the hill where they will be promptly smoked by a speeding truck on our dangerous roads with zero biking infrastructure.

    The white shadow guy in the picture is also extremely happy about it, because he will now be able to get home faster to change his soaking wet clothing from being splashed by 4 cars speeding through as he darted through traffic hoping that, for once, someone would stop.

  86. #186

    Default

    ^^

    On the right hidden from the view is the multi-use trail between Louis Mckinney Park and Low level bridge.

  87. #187

    Default

    Can someone tell me how a cyclist will be able to get their bike into that teeny, tiny glass elevator? Then tell me how my Trek tandem will fit?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  88. #188
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    My guess is the elevator isn't really drawn to scale, but more to give you an idea of what the final look might be.

  89. #189

    Default

    Eventually they will have to redo the low level bridge, so I think it would be a waste of time building this until a new bridge is factored into the plans.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  90. #190

    Default

    So once you cross the bridge over the roadway you have to take stairs to actually get down from the boardwalk? Defeating the entire purpose of the funicular's "accessibility" reason?

    Edit: is that an elevator next to the stairs? I take an elevator to get to the funicular? Let me do the whole trip with the funicular if you must build this ridiculous thing
    Last edited by Perspective; 22-06-2015 at 06:42 PM.

  91. #191
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,627

    Default

    How do we get this stopped? I don't care if it's funded, tax payers are paying for it.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ncil-1.3123757
    It's going to be out of commission 50% of the year due to repairs. Almost no one is going to take it. If it's paid, are they going to have someone man the booth? Will it become part of Edmonton transit? If it's unmanned, who enforces payment?
    Do they honestly think it's going to last more than 30 years (I see the projections go out that far)? What a total waste of money in a ridiculous location.

    I assume our councillor is the best person to talk to about this?

  92. #192

    Default

    Another shovel ready project to nowhere...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  93. #193

    Default

    I love this plan.

    Don't mind investigating a "one ride, straight shot" either, but either way this is a key link in the cycling infrastructure.

    ^ you dispute the viability of Mill Creek as accessible cycling infrastructure?
    Last edited by JayBee; 23-06-2015 at 01:49 PM.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  94. #194

    Default

    I have cycled Mill Creek countless times. Never had an accessibility issue yet. Noticed a number of strollers and people in wheelchairs on those trails too. Lots of handicapped/cycling parking in the Valley too, including by Shaw, Mill Creek Pool, the boat landing etc.

    Please don't make things up to push a project.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 23-06-2015 at 11:51 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  95. #195

    Default

    ^ I think you're completely missing my point.

    Mill Creek Ravine is the single best cycling route in the City of anywhere close to its length or adjacent population. How does Mill Creek connect to the largest commuting destination in the City to which it is directly oriented?

    Very poorly.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  96. #196

    Default

    That is your opinion. Not mine, nor the opinion of many others. IMHO and as a cyclist, I see that this is a huge amount of money spent on a flashy project that will cost millions more to maintain and is useless if it is not available at a very high reliability.

    Want to talk about the availability and reliability of indoor elevators and escalators at the LRT stations that take months to repair?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  97. #197
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,291

    Default

    David Staples just tweeted that the funicular has just been approved, no other details yet.
    “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

  98. #198
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    Excellent news. New pedestrian staircase, bridge & funicular from downtown right to river has council OK! #ejlive
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  99. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    That is your opinion. Not mine, nor the opinion of many others. IMHO and as a cyclist, I see that this is a huge amount of money spent on a flashy project that will cost millions more to maintain and is useless if it is not available at a very high reliability.
    In your opinion is McDougall Hill Road, Grierson Hill Road and 800 cyclists a day using the SCC elevators realistic for any but the elite and most experienced cyclists?

    Is so, sorry, but we disagree completely.

    I am not asking any beginner bicycle commuters to attempt McDougall or Grierson in either direction.

    Your solution guaranteed will result in completely insignificant ride share improvements.

    Want to talk about the availability and reliability of indoor elevators and escalators at the LRT stations that take months to repair?
    I don't know. Which thread are we in?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  100. #200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Excellent news. New pedestrian staircase, bridge & funicular from downtown right to river has council OK! #ejlive
    Seeing the pictures, the staircase looks pretty good. I just don't agree with the funicular add on, the ability to reach the river valley / accessability is already in the conference center, seems a lot of money.

Page 2 of 8 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
  •