Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 761

Thread: River Valley Mechanized Access/Funicular | Under Construction

  1. #201
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    I'm hoping they go with the east option, works better than planting people in the middle of a view obscuring, pedestrian unfriendly interchange ramp.

    I would also highly doubt Low Level Bridge will ever be removed, unlike Walterdale it is historic resource and can take quite a bit of weight as it was originally a railway bridge, in addition it is Edmonton's 1st bridge across the river.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Le...%28Edmonton%29

  2. #202

    Default

    ^ 100%, all points.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  3. #203

    Default

    Will it be maintained similar to every single other thing the city has successfully maintained? (see: nothing)

  4. #204

    Default

    ^ the elevator and funicular controls will be maintained by Thales.

    They have experience with other Edmonton projects.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  5. #205

    Default

    The current scheme shows a single track funicular. So once you've wasted a few minutes waiting for and getting on the first elevator, you wait for the funicular to come back down or go all the way up with the previous passengers before it's your turn, at which point you say screw it and take the stairs. Will this be free? I think I would ever use it once for the novelty.

  6. #206

    Default

    I thought it was free, but others in this thread have suggested tolls.

    I'd prefer the direct user fees be competitive with the automobile infrastructure left and right.

    Agree lots of would-be users likely start taking the stairs, but have that backup on lazy days.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  7. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    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?
    Could we have a source of your claims that there are "800 cyclists a day" who will use this? That is more than 1 per minute. WOW!!! Even for just the 5 day work week, you are suggesting over 200,000 cycling users annually???? That is more than 1 per minute. WOW!!!

    I mean WOW!!!
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  8. #208

    Default

    Settle down Beavis.

    This is the number from the City's report. Blast that all you want, not me.

    But you know what, you didn't answer your question.

    Can't?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  9. #209

    Default

    Want to help bicycle commuting? Offer the Add-E to Edmonton cyclists at a 50% discount. Far cheaper and can be used on your entire commute and recreational use.



    https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a...bicycle#/story
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Settle down Beavis.

    This is the number from the City's report. Blast that all you want, not me.

    But you know what, you didn't answer your question.

    Can't?
    The report never said 800 cyclists. You converted all users (joggers, walkers, etc) on a biased report to claim that number. No one ever backed up even that number if it was an annual average or only a estimate based upon a nice warm day in Edmonton. Not a typically cold 6 months of the year.

    Keep playing with the numbers Jaybee. We can tell you are losing a debate when your facts are cooked and you start labeling me.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  11. #211

    Default

    ^^ good idea, but doesn't make McDougall or Grierson safer downhill.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Settle down Beavis.

    This is the number from the City's report. Blast that all you want, not me.

    But you know what, you didn't answer your question.

    Can't?
    The report never said 800 cyclists. You converted all users (joggers, walkers, etc) on a biased report to claim that number. No one ever backed up even that number if it was an annual average or only a estimate based upon a nice warm day in Edmonton. Not a typically cold 6 months of the year.

    Keep playing with the numbers Jaybee. We can tell you are losing a debate when your facts are cooked and you start labeling me.
    Okay, number I didn't create includes joggers walkers etc. Same number you think the Shaw wants? What's your point?

    And why are you so scared of answering that question you quoted above?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  13. #213

    Default

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

  14. #214

    Default

    This one:
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    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?
    You can break it up into:

    • How many users of all modes the SCC really wants
    • What percentage of the Downtown commuters around Mill Creek are ready for either Grierson or McDougall, plus willing to take the kilometres-detour either represent

    If you want.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  15. #215
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    The good newS is that the 12 people that use that new velodrome are gonna love this











    😉
    be offended! figure out why later...

  16. #216

    Default

    ^ attempt at humour noted.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  17. #217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    This one:
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    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?
    You can break it up into:

    • How many users of all modes the SCC really wants
    • What percentage of the Downtown commuters around Mill Creek are ready for either Grierson or McDougall, plus willing to take the kilometres-detour either represent

    If you want.
    You said "But you know what, you didn't answer your question." That was not my question, it was yours.

    I don't have that information, the COE does not and neither do you but you are the one making stuff up as you go. The onus of the evidence is upon you that makes the claims. This debating concept is new to you?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  18. #218

    Default



    You have out-obliqued me. Congratulations. And still failed to answer. Condemnations.

    Meanwhile Council has decided wisely and I applaud. I look forward to using it on my way South one day soon.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  19. #219

    Default

    How can I answer a question that nobody knows the answer?

    You may firmly believe I have godly powers but sorry, I do not.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  20. #220

    Default

    Been a while since I've looked at this thread. I don't have time now to skim all prior posts but it seems that this project is still seen as a failure by some posters.

    So again I'll raise the issue of improving access for those of limited mobility (and fear of staircases. ). Is this a consideration among those that see it as a failed project?

    BTW after cracking his neck, my own father spent a number of years in an electric wheelchair. A couple times I had to lift him and the chair about to get into tight offices (dentist office for one). It's a near impossible feat. When he had to go anywhere we called coop cab to get their bus. Nothing happened fast, any appointment usually required an hour or two extra time vs able bodied requirements.
    Last edited by KC; 23-06-2015 at 02:16 PM.

  21. #221
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ Good question. There was an earlier attempt at making the case for imminent failure of this project because (wording is mine): able bodied cyclists will not want to wait for the thing to arrive and take the stairs.

    Well, I sure hope so. I think as much as possible only those with mobility issues should be using this thing.

  22. #222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    How can I answer a question that nobody knows the answer?
    If you can't even volunteer what assumptions you think are realistic, you shouldn't really volunteer the judgement which should follow said assumptions, should you?

    You may firmly believe I have godly powers but sorry, I do not.
    Forgive me, I thought you had a basis for your thesis.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  23. #223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    ^ Good question. There was an earlier attempt at making the case for imminent failure of this project because (wording is mine): able bodied cyclists will not want to wait for the thing to arrive and take the stairs.

    Well, I sure hope so. I think as much as possible only those with mobility issues should be using this thing.
    I hope it's used by as many people as possible.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  24. #224
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,291

    Default

    So...did they choose the west alignment or east?
    “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

  25. #225

    Default

    This thing looks terrible and isn't even a necessity. Why don't they spend it on lowering taxes instead? Fixing roads?

  26. #226
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^joke post?

    Ideally we would look to using the cash(not that it is available for other uses) to improve bicycle infrastructure in the city.

    I feel in terms of aiding cyclists this project is putting the cart before the horse. Our bike paths would be laughed out of Europe. Painting lines on a road doesn't make something a bike path.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  27. #227

    Default

    It's not a joke. Neither are perpetually bad roads and a projected 6% annual tax increase for 3 years straight. Neither is the fact that I'd rather be looking at trees than this thing if I had a choice.

  28. #228

    Default

    I agree this isn't the only thing we should be doing for cycling. Roads need work, routes need work, no doubt. Still if we get those, we'll need this. The hill isn't going away.

    Much rather look at this than the stupid surface parking lot in McKinney Park.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  29. #229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    I feel in terms of aiding cyclists this project is putting the cart before the horse. Our bike paths would be laughed out of Europe. Painting lines on a road doesn't make something a bike path.
    They have figured this out in Calgary re their trial, the beltline is now connected to CBD, the lanes are separated (they have also put parking to "shelter" the lane on some avenues). At a price of $6m, its a lot less than this funicular, and connects the downtown:

    http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/06/2...k-all-at-once/

    We’re completing it almost two weeks early, ahead of schedule, as well as under budget,” said [Calgary Transportation Planning Director Don] Mulligan. “The budget was $7.1 million for this project. The costs have now been totaled and it’s coming in at $5.75 million. It’s $1.35 million under budget.

    Earlier this spring, city crews opened the 12 Avenue S. and 5 Street S.W. sections of the bike lane. Mulligan says usage has exceeded expectations.

    “On 12 Avenue, we’re counting, on an average weekday, 1,000 vehicles a day,” boasted Mulligan. “Our target was 800, which was four times what it was before we had cycle tracks.

    “We now have counts for the first time of 5 Street, under the CPR tracks, and they’re coming in at 1,500 cyclists a day which is the highest we’ve ever encountered on any street for bikes in Calgary.”

    According to data released by the office of the City of Calgary Transportation Infrastructure, the impact of the 12 Avenue protected bike lane on motorist travel times has been minimal.

    Travel times compiled from 11 Street Southwest to 4 Street Southeast indicate commute times for motorists over the 15-block stretch have increased by an average of 60 to 90 seconds since the bike lane was installed.
    http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/06/2...k-all-at-once/



    http://globalnews.ca/news/2006292/bu...ry-bike-lanes/
    Last edited by moahunter; 23-06-2015 at 03:21 PM.

  30. #230
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^joke post?

    Ideally we would look to using the cash(not that it is available for other uses) to improve bicycle infrastructure in the city.

    I feel in terms of aiding cyclists this project is putting the cart before the horse. Our bike paths would be laughed out of Europe. Painting lines on a road doesn't make something a bike path.
    Joke post?

    The City is coughing up 1/3 of the cost for this insulting waste of resources, and it is paying 100% of the cost of operation thereafter. That money can be used on whatever City Council damn well chooses.

    As I mentioned earlier in this thread, just the portion the City is covering could be used to run proper grade-separated, protected bike lanes the length of the entire downtown area.

    We are collective morons as a city if we allows this asinine white elephant to be built.

  31. #231
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^i meant joke post as in he says we should lower taxes and fix roads instead with the money. The default Albertan response....

    I am fully on board with better bike infrastructure.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  32. #232

    Default

    It's such an obscure part of the valley to develop, essentially just a cliff and roads. I think the whole thing is ridiculous, but at least the 104st alignment had the opportunity to develop amenities at the top and below. I don't know why that alignment got scrapped, but I guess they needed an equally ridiculous location for it. That stretch at the top of the valley at 100st is terrible.

    And who is the funicular for? Is it for cyclists or accessibility? It's doing both poorly right now.

  33. #233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^joke post?

    Ideally we would look to using the cash(not that it is available for other uses) to improve bicycle infrastructure in the city.

    I feel in terms of aiding cyclists this project is putting the cart before the horse. Our bike paths would be laughed out of Europe. Painting lines on a road doesn't make something a bike path.
    Joke post?

    The City is coughing up 1/3 of the cost for this insulting waste of resources, and it is paying 100% of the cost of operation thereafter. That money can be used on whatever City Council damn well chooses.

    As I mentioned earlier in this thread, just the portion the City is covering could be used to run proper grade-separated, protected bike lanes the length of the entire downtown area.

    We are collective morons as a city if we allows this asinine white elephant to be built.
    However, if you're not a cyclist you might be saying that running bike lanes downtown is a total waste to serve one season users that just divides up precious auto/pedestrian real estate, and that money should be used to reduce 4-season congestion on various roadways, etc.


    I do have to ask how you transport your kids about town, perform stroller management, etc.

  34. #234
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Bike lanes improve the pedestrian environment, as they provide a buffer between traffic and pedestrians. They are a great way to improve the character of a sidewalk.

    Reducing lanes does not increase traffic in a saturated traffic environment, as people primarily choose a form of transportation based on time cost. People transition to a different mode of transportation.

    And to those who simply desire driving? Too bad, so sad. Frankly I do not care. It is better for our economy, better for our environment, and better for our health to do it this way. They can lick their wounds somewhere else.

  35. #235
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,291

    Default

    You kids who want to social-engineer people out of their cars with everything short of gunpoint...so gosh darn cute.
    Anyways this thread is about the funicular, take your anti-car pontificating to the appropriate thread, please.
    “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

  36. #236
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ one could argue that the bike users/ pedestrians/ public transit users (street cars especially)/ and equestrians before them got socially engineered and "forced into cars" when all those massive road developments (i.e. city streets) were built. It's a matter of bending truth and being extremely self-centred.

    There are people that would benefit from this. They should be respected and public funds should be used for them just like public funds should be used for road improvements, bike lane construction, parks, and public transit.

  37. #237
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,291

    Default

    ^ I don't care - take that discussion to the half-dozen other threads on the subject. I'm sick of reading about in every thread just because a certain poster has a conniption fit when he sees the word "car" or "traffic"
    “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

  38. #238
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Ahem... This is your conniption we are discussing. You don't care? Why bring it up? The ridiculous "social engineering" catch phrase has been used way too many times. It is meaningless as it applies to any change you don't like.

  39. #239
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,291

    Default

    *** updates ignore list ***
    Hey guys how about that funicular, huh? I agree with some of you, it should have gone further down to the river side.
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 23-06-2015 at 10:51 PM.
    “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

  40. #240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    ^ one could argue that the bike users/ pedestrians/ public transit users (street cars especially)/ and equestrians before them got socially engineered and "forced into cars" when all those massive road developments (i.e. city streets) were built. It's a matter of bending truth and being extremely self-centred.

    There are people that would benefit from this. They should be respected and public funds should be used for them just like public funds should be used for road improvements, bike lane construction, parks, and public transit.
    Sorry, but I think before public transit... private vehicles and animals ruled the roads...



    http://ww2.glenbow.org/dbimages/arc4/v/na-2318-1.jpg

  41. #241
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,409

    Default

    I wonder if the signals will work.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  42. #242
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    ^ one could argue that the bike users/ pedestrians/ public transit users (street cars especially)/ and equestrians before them got socially engineered and "forced into cars" when all those massive road developments (i.e. city streets) were built. It's a matter of bending truth and being extremely self-centred.

    There are people that would benefit from this. They should be respected and public funds should be used for them just like public funds should be used for road improvements, bike lane construction, parks, and public transit.
    Sorry, but I think before public transit... private vehicles and animals ruled the roads...



    http://ww2.glenbow.org/dbimages/arc4/v/na-2318-1.jpg
    I DID mention "equestrian"...

  43. #243

    Default

    Oh I wish we could go back to the old days before cars and bicycles and cell phones.

    Back to the days of walking down wooden sidewalks. Crossing muddy streets that were filled with horse 5hit. We had a funicular back then. It was Utopian.


    https://lostyeg.wordpress.com/2014/0...-street-hoist/

    Estimated cost $16,000
    As built $30,000 ($645,000 in today's money)
    Built with private money
    Two alternating cars
    Able to lift people, loaded wagons and horses.
    Even lifted horseless carriages (damn things)
    Brought development to the two separate city regions

    http://www.edmontonmapsheritage.ca/l...cline-railway/
    Ominous
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 24-06-2015 at 07:28 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  44. #244
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Build us a funicular for $645,000 and we will quiet down.

    Waste $24 million and people are going to be upset. This is an absurd amount of money.

    24 million dollars. In what universe is this remotely ok?

    Because some specific posters throw a conniption fit whenever people try to compare downtown transportation options in light of massive white elephant projects, why don't we compare this to other lift options?

    The Whistler Blackcombe gondola was constructed for $51 million. This Gondola covers 4.4 kilometres. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_2_Peak_Gondola

    Our lift will cover about 125 metres? Maybe 30 metres elevation max? Plus or minus a bit, that is about 0.03x the distance covered by the Whistler Gondola. So why not build a bloody gondola for a fraction of the price?
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 24-06-2015 at 07:29 AM.

  45. #245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ Build us a funicular for $645,000 and we will quiet down.

    Waste $24 million and people are going to be upset. This is an absurd amount of money.

    24 million dollars. In what universe is this remotely ok?

    Because some specific posters throw a conniption fit whenever people try to compare downtown transportation options in light of massive white elephant projects, why don't we compare this to other lift options?

    The Whistler Blackcombe gondola was constructed for $51 million. This Gondola covers 4.4 kilometres. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_2_Peak_Gondola

    Our lift will cover about 125 metres? Maybe 30 metres elevation max? Plus or minus a bit, that is about 0.03x the distance covered by the Whistler Gondola. So why not build a bloody gondola for a fraction of the price?
    The funicular mechanism portion is about $5 million. The concrete and grand staircase seems to consume the rest.

    What about the cost of the footbridges across the river. Wasn't the one over to Hawrelak about $26 million? Today it seems massively overbuilt but by its half life it might be right sized.
    Last edited by KC; 24-06-2015 at 07:58 AM.

  46. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    ^ one could argue that the bike users/ pedestrians/ public transit users (street cars especially)/ and equestrians before them got socially engineered and "forced into cars" when all those massive road developments (i.e. city streets) were built. It's a matter of bending truth and being extremely self-centred.

    There are people that would benefit from this. They should be respected and public funds should be used for them just like public funds should be used for road improvements, bike lane construction, parks, and public transit.
    Sorry, but I think before public transit... private vehicles and animals ruled the roads...



    http://ww2.glenbow.org/dbimages/arc4/v/na-2318-1.jpg
    I DID mention "equestrian"...
    I'd love to understand what thinking, standards and conventions went into the original design. The width is quite amazing. Was it a standard width used in big cities, allowance to allow horse and carriage to pull over and to turn around mid-street, other? Other: trains?

    Note though, that most of the road width seemed to be dedicated towards 4 wheeled 'vehicles' and 4 footed animals and relatively little to pedestrians.

    Is that a "passing lane" I see?


    note : off to the righ of the image those are pretty tall and deep buildings.
    Last edited by KC; 24-06-2015 at 08:11 AM.

  47. #247

    Default

    Excellent posts KC and Jaerdo

    BTW, are they not going to reduce park access by removing the footbridge for LRT construction?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  48. #248
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I would rather see another foot bridge for the cost than a funicular.

    At risk of Sonic's wrath, I still feel like we should evaluate the state of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure downtown prior to building a massive project that is, ostensibly, to get pedestrians and cyclists downtown.

    If we have to have mechanized access, why not just make something simple that will be easy to maintain, and put it in an area that actually makes sense? How about a very simple, no frills gondola from the Leg grounds down to Rossdale? Or a cheap cable tram down 104 from Jasper ave to Rossdale? If we absolutely have to spend the money, I don't understand why we are spending it here.

  49. #249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Is that a "passing lane" I see?
    That is a HOV lane.

    Horse Operated Vehicle LOL


    Oh look, an operating streetcar. Did not take weeks of training. No signal issues then...

    www.bac-lac.gc.ca
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 24-06-2015 at 08:32 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  50. #250

    Default

    Paved street? Why on earth was this needed? At what cost! Accessibility to street cars?

    http://i0.wp.com/citymuseumedmonton....ize=1030%2C745

  51. #251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    I would rather see another foot bridge for the cost than a funicular.

    At risk of Sonic's wrath, I still feel like we should evaluate the state of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure downtown prior to building a massive project that is, ostensibly, to get pedestrians and cyclists downtown.

    If we have to have mechanized access, why not just make something simple that will be easy to maintain, and put it in an area that actually makes sense? How about a very simple, no frills gondola from the Leg grounds down to Rossdale? Or a cheap cable tram down 104 from Jasper ave to Rossdale? If we absolutely have to spend the money, I don't understand why we are spending it here.
    For $24 million we should get a aerial tramway along Gateway from Whyte, down to Rossdale and down 104th or 105th to Jasper ave and even GM Campus. with 3 to 5 stops. Now that would be useful and popular and even charge fares.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  52. #252
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Judging by the cost of systems going into ski hills, I think it might be possible around that 25-30 million mark. At the same time, I see a system like that built by the CoE ballooning to $100 million easily.

    Maybe a good opportunity for a full P3? Private company assumes construction cost/risk and operation risk, recoups money through use tolls. City gives land use rights in return. This system works very well in Europe for road and other transit projects.

  53. #253

    Default

    Been there, done that.

    The COE is vehemently opposed to good transit ideas that do not cost truckloads of money. Airports, campuses and amusement parks that move huge numbers of people (often with automated driverless systems) at often no cost to the passenger and build their transit options with private money have no place in our city. The intransigent transportation department has no use for competition of their turf.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 24-06-2015 at 09:31 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  54. #254

    Default

    I do like the gondola idea, also since it is not bound to an embedded track or rail it has the opportunity to be flexible in its path as destinations/needs change.

  55. #255

  56. #256

    Default

    obviously not the type I meant, but I wouldn't mind some of those either

  57. #257
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Isn't somebody going to suggest we flood the streets in the winter and have people skate to work?

    While you can downhill skate that uphill part is a killer.

    http://newint.org/columns/currents/2...ooker-gomberg/

  58. #258

    Default

    I thought that Red Bull had that worked out last winter in nearly the same location?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  59. #259
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Downhill yup, uphill skating is quite a bit of a challenge... tow rope perhaps.

  60. #260

    Default

    I have an old tow rope in the garage. Special price, for you $23,999,99.95

    I'll deliver it for free.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  61. #261

    Default

    Off topic fact: Edmonton PRT has used the word intransigent at least 45 times since 2012.

  62. #262

    Default

    Well, it's going ahead so we'll have to revisit all our assumptions in a few years to see how good everyone is at predicting the future.

  63. #263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I have an old tow rope in the garage. Special price, for you $23,999,99.95

    I'll deliver it for free.
    And stairs and viewing platforms too. Note that a couple times it's been highlighted that the $24 million isn't just for the funicular. The funicular is closer to $5 million+underpinnings than $24 million-underpinings.
    Last edited by KC; 24-06-2015 at 07:57 PM.

  64. #264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Off topic fact: Edmonton PRT has used the word intransigent at least 45 times since 2012.
    Only you would bother to count.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    "All I hear from communities, and I hear lots, is that our administration is absolutely intransigent," Mayor Stephen Mandel told transportation officials. "(You) say, 'We will listen to you', but you have no intention of listening to anybody. You have your minds made up." 2011

    "I have to say that I have never been less impressed with the intransigence of members of our administration who talk about transit-oriented development and then work to deliver a plan that will amount to the opposite," he told a West Edmonton Business Association luncheon. 2008

    How about 3 times in just one EJ article? http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...d-44588d931638
    BY THE EDMONTON JOURNAL APRIL 30, 2008
    EDMONTON - Mayor Stephen Mandel blasted the "intransigence" of the city transportation department Tuesday for its failure to plan a cost-effective west LRT line aimed at encouraging better development.
    <snip>
    "I have to say that I have never been less impressed with the intransigence of members of our administration who talk about transit-oriented development and then work to deliver a plan that will amount to the opposite," he told a West Edmonton Business Association luncheon. "The LRT is a tool for our future. But we have to decide to use it to do the right things. Because at $100 million per kilometre above ground, or even more, it isn't a tool we can make mistakes with."
    <snip>
    In a later interview, Mandel said he wasn't taking a potshot at city staff. "I'm frustrated with the intransigence they have shown when they look at this thing, as are many of the people I talk to who don't feel their voices are being listened to."

    Let's see the how many times the Auditor will use that word.

    intransigent, intransigent, intransigent, intransigent, intransigent, intransigent, intransigent, intransigent, intransigent, intransigent, intransigent, intransigent,

    LOL
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 24-06-2015 at 09:05 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  65. #265

    Default

    Back on topic please.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  66. #266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    I would rather see another foot bridge for the cost than a funicular.

    At risk of Sonic's wrath, I still feel like we should evaluate the state of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure downtown prior to building a massive project that is, ostensibly, to get pedestrians and cyclists downtown.

    If we have to have mechanized access, why not just make something simple that will be easy to maintain, and put it in an area that actually makes sense? How about a very simple, no frills gondola from the Leg grounds down to Rossdale? Or a cheap cable tram down 104 from Jasper ave to Rossdale? If we absolutely have to spend the money, I don't understand why we are spending it here.
    For $24 million we should get a aerial tramway along Gateway from Whyte, down to Rossdale and down 104th or 105th to Jasper ave and even GM Campus. with 3 to 5 stops. Now that would be useful and popular and even charge fares.
    Sounds like you're using the same accounting method as you did for your PRT, where it would be built at no cost to the city, cost $1 per ride anywhere in the city AND run at a profit for both the city and the developer.

    You're going to build 3 to 5 stations and run the guideway, including a river crossing for $24 million? What's it made with, Lego?

  67. #267

    Default

    River Valley Access Gets a Lift


    June 23, 2015

    Mechanized access to be built in downtown Edmonton
    Citizens will soon have a new way to access the river valley from downtown Edmonton. City Council has approved the construction of the Mechanized River Valley Access project starting at 100 Street near the Hotel MacDonald and ending in the river valley trail system near the Low Level Bridge.

    ...
    Source
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  68. #268
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post

    Sounds like you're using the same accounting method as you did for your PRT, where it would be built at no cost to the city, cost $1 per ride anywhere in the city AND run at a profit for both the city and the developer.

    You're going to build 3 to 5 stations and run the guideway, including a river crossing for $24 million? What's it made with, Lego?
    As mentioned earlier, Whistler managed to build a 4.4 kilometre gondola over hazardous terrain between huge mountains, fit with multiple huge station buildings for $51 million.

    Of course in Edmonton it would probably be 5x that amount on our comparably pancake flat land.

    To add more to it, they also had to helicopter concrete and steel up the mountain. If we can't build the same distance gondola for half their price we are completely incompetent.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 25-06-2015 at 12:12 PM.

  69. #269
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    Instead of this I would have much rather had a cable car connection from say end of steel park to in front of telus.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  70. #270
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton - Blue Quill
    Posts
    3,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Instead of this I would have much rather had a cable car connection from say end of steel park to in front of telus.
    Or better yet, "As well as this".
    Fly Edmonton first. Support EIA

  71. #271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    To add more to it, they also had to helicopter concrete and steel up the mountain. If we can't build the same distance gondola for half their price we are completely incompetent.
    Waiting for that Auditor's report. I liked the earlier one on the proposed $75M 23rd ave intersection that cost $253.7M.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  72. #272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Instead of this I would have much rather had a cable car connection from say end of steel park to in front of telus.
    Jasper Ave to Whyte on the 104th alignment would be super.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  73. #273
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Was watching the CBC video on city design linked here http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=37510 over the lunch hour today, and saw an interesting idea.

    The city of Medellin, Colombia has solved "vertical issues" by creating a series of outdoor escalators that deliver people to various levels up major hills:



    Turns out that you can also do this in snowy winter environments:



    These are supposedly very effective, and cheaper than other solutions. We could even slap solar panels on the top for energy.

    This would be a great, far cheaper solution in a location that has development from the bottom all the way up the hill. I think an excellent idea would be to develop some sort of long and narrow urban park with a multi-use path that goes from rossdale up 104 (leading from where new bridge will let pedestrians off). When it gets too steep, put a series of these escalators in switchbacks, ending up at the top by McKay School. For added flavour, I think they should extend the nice streetscape design of 104 south of jasper at the same time.

    This has some benefits over a funicular:

    - Pedestrian focused - people keep walking and moving fluidly, they don't stand around waiting for a cable car

    - Delivers people to locations along the entire hill, not just the top and bottom (more opportunity for development)

    - Cheaper to build and operate

    - Potential to create a very cool urban environment (why not let businesses open at every "level"? Picture shops, cafes, etc in a multi-level outdoor "mall" centered around this)

    Added point, Medellin also did the "Urban Ski Gondola" thing. Apparently they found it was 50% cheaper than light rail.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 06-07-2015 at 03:28 PM.

  74. #274

    Default

    Considering the escalators in the LRT stations I'll take my chances on the funicular.

  75. #275

    Default

    Can't be used by the handicapped
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  76. #276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Was watching the CBC video on city design linked here http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=37510 over the lunch hour today, and saw an interesting idea.

    The city of Medellin, Colombia has solved "vertical issues" by creating a series of outdoor escalators that deliver people to various levels up major hills:



    Turns out that you can also do this in snowy winter environments:



    These are supposedly very effective, and cheaper than other solutions. We could even slap solar panels on the top for energy.

    This would be a great, far cheaper solution in a location that has development from the bottom all the way up the hill. I think an excellent idea would be to develop some sort of long and narrow urban park with a multi-use path that goes from rossdale up 104 (leading from where new bridge will let pedestrians off). When it gets too steep, put a series of these escalators in switchbacks, ending up at the top by McKay School. For added flavour, I think they should extend the nice streetscape design of 104 south of jasper at the same time.

    This has some benefits over a funicular:

    - Pedestrian focused - people keep walking and moving fluidly, they don't stand around waiting for a cable car

    - Delivers people to locations along the entire hill, not just the top and bottom (more opportunity for development)

    - Cheaper to build and operate

    - Potential to create a very cool urban environment (why not let businesses open at every "level"? Picture shops, cafes, etc in a multi-level outdoor "mall" centered around this)

    Added point, Medellin also did the "Urban Ski Gondola" thing. Apparently they found it was 50% cheaper than light rail.
    Again. Wheel chairs, strollers... Access for all... ?

    Very cool though.
    Last edited by KC; 07-07-2015 at 03:31 AM.

  77. #277

    Default

    Has this been posted?

    Click on view gallery (top right of linked page)

    River Valley Mechanized Access

    Down to the river to play
    A new introduction to Edmonton’s river valley
    http://www.dialogdesign.ca/projects/...anized-access/



    ~

  78. #278

    Default

    Job No 182041886-001
    Description: To Construct a Funicular, Plaza, Pedestrian Bridge, Elevator and Staircase
    Location: 10065 - 100 STREET NW
    Plan 8522037 Lot 2
    10007 - 100 STREET NW
    Plan 8522037 Lot 1
    9565 - GRIERSON HILL NW
    Plan 1521205 Blk 1 Lot 1
    Applicant: DIALOG
    Status: In Development Review
    Create Date: 11/5/2015 12:29:05 PM

  79. #279

    Default

    Did they end up going with the East alignment?
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  80. #280

    Default

    ^ I guess they did, according to the Dialog plans ��
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  81. #281

    Default

    The best part (or saddest) about this funicular is that it requires an elevator to get to it. It can't even fulfill its one job of taking you from top to bottom in one go. Well done CoE!

  82. #282

    Default

    I still don't see how or why this is needed.

  83. #283

    Default

    And this unique feature in Edmonton will put us on the map!

    Let's not even discuss that we have one already just 300 meter east of the same point.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  84. #284

    Default

    I love this project. Haters gonna hate.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  85. #285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perspective View Post
    The best part (or saddest) about this funicular is that it requires an elevator to get to it. It can't even fulfill its one job of taking you from top to bottom in one go. Well done CoE!
    Yeah, why not run it right down to the water's edge, maybe to a boat dock?

    Are there plans for a foot bridge to eventually join this walkway at its terminal point?

  86. #286

    Default

    It's a route, not a destination.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  87. #287
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,071

    Default

    What a waste of money.

  88. #288
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,962

    Default

    I think its just a thing they would like to have for the tea drinkers at the Mac to have a nice little ride on

  89. #289

    Default

    ^rather than walk 2 minutes to the convention center escalators / elevators, yip.

  90. #290

    Default

    This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts about this city. Looks ugly, most people aren't clamouring for it, costs millions and millions of dollars, is simply not a necessity, takes up funding that could be used on fundamental infrastructure. It's another joke project brought to you by the City of Edmonton while they raise taxes yet again. Why don't they spend this $24M on the neighborhood renewal they were worried they might have to cut?

  91. #291

    Default

    ^I think it has to be spent on river valley, but I'd much rather have seen some work in Rosedale, or a better bike path down, or similar.

  92. #292

    Default

    They shouldn't be spending money on the river valley at all. Most people don't want to see it developed. And even if they did, it's simply not a priority given the city's other infrastructure needs.

  93. #293
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I think most people do want to have improved paths, accessible parks and additional routes and bridges in the river valley, and if those things are development then people want development.

  94. #294

    Default

    ^Even if you are correct -and I'm not convinced people really care about developing the river valley other than maintaining the infrastructure that already exists - stuff like this should not be a priority when this province is practically broke, city taxes are being raised, and essential infrastructure needs are GLARING.

  95. #295

    Default

    Well I certainly care. I've lost count of the number of times I've been asked (by a tourist, someone here on business, a fellow Edmontonian perhaps?) about the best way to access the river valley, only to meet them with a blank deer-in-headlights stare. And this coming from an avid user of said river valley. Every route is just too convoluted to explain.

    I'll be using both elements (stairs/ramp and funicular) regularly I'm sure. And no, the Shaw access point gets you nowhere close.

  96. #296

    Default

    Well I certainly care. I've lost count of the number of times I've been asked (by a tourist, someone here on business, a fellow Edmontonian perhaps?) about the best way to access the river valley from downtown, only to meet them with a blank, deer-in-headlights stare. And this coming from an avid user of said river valley. Every route is just too convoluted to explain.

    I will be using both elements regularly (stairs/ramp and funicular). And no, using the Shaw access point doesn't get you close.

    I'm not surprised that there are naysayers right now, but this is absolutely the right thing to do for a city that boasts about its river valley.

  97. #297

    Default

    Access to Kinsmen Park from the top of Walterdale Hill at 109th would have been a much better site with a destination.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  98. #298

    Default

    Routes are better than destinations.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  99. #299

    Default

    It is a route and a destination. How can you say otherwise? The current plan drops you off beside the road with not destination. The Kinsmen alignment would put you right at the heart of the park, access to JW Museum, the Aquatic Centre and sports facility, the golf course and access to trails on the flood plain.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 09-11-2015 at 08:55 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  100. #300
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    The funicular will be "fun". Get it? fun!
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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
  •