PDA

View Full Version : R100 St Funicular/Stairway & Frederick G. Todd Lookout/Elevator/Stairwell - Complete



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Barry N
07-04-2015, 12:14 PM
EDMONTON - The city hopes to start construction this year on Alberta’s only funicular that would improve access to the river valley.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/Downtown+funicular+getting+closer+reality+construc tion/10951994/story.html

Chmilz
07-04-2015, 12:57 PM
Boondoggle 2015!

All said and done, this thing will probably cost us $1000 per person per use over time.

JJMorrocco
07-04-2015, 01:03 PM
Great to see again CC has no clue about the current fiscal climate.

Magnoblade
07-04-2015, 01:32 PM
My god you people. It says COULD and you make it seem like its going to be built anyhow.

Replacement
07-04-2015, 01:40 PM
Up, Up, Up.

Its all happening.

edit. whoops, did not read.

psiebold1
07-04-2015, 02:16 PM
Up, Up, Up.

Its all happening.

edit. whoops, did not read.

C'est le fil.

IanO
07-04-2015, 02:17 PM
Access to the river valley is important, this, now, at that cost, even with funding, is NOT.

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

Magnoblade
07-04-2015, 02:28 PM
^like buying a street sweeper?

Replacement
07-04-2015, 02:35 PM
Access to the river valley is important, this, now, at that cost, even with funding, is NOT.

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

SCC has been my funicular ride or escalator when I'm feeling lazy or just cycled in from Millhoods.

Stairs seem to work fine though..

This is kind of barking up the wrong tree imo. Anybody needing a Funicular ride isn't going to be so adept anyway at exploring the River Valley. If one does happen to be handicapped the SCC elevator would still be the best bet.

IanO
07-04-2015, 02:44 PM
^like buying a street sweeper?

Exactly*

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

GenWhy?
07-04-2015, 02:47 PM
There has to be brick and mortar amenities on both ends of it to be truly successful for all citizens. I'm healthy and young and would only use it if it were a "destination" in itself, not merely river access only. Piece of a pie at best, but alone it might prove inefficient.

IanO
07-04-2015, 02:49 PM
My large question is where does it go to?!!?!?

Oh the valley, well then, washes hands.

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

Magnoblade
07-04-2015, 02:51 PM
^Did you even bother to read the story it said where it would / could go.

IanO
07-04-2015, 02:54 PM
Yes. But where DOES it go? Add another ped bridge AND maybe 'a short elevator ride'.

So very well thought out.

Jaerdo
07-04-2015, 03:07 PM
https://img0.etsystatic.com/029/1/8422091/il_340x270.647434168_cf5d.jpg

Magnoblade
07-04-2015, 03:19 PM
^fixed that for you

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8799/16863460737_834130972b_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rGaDn4)il_340x270.647434168_cf5d (https://flic.kr/p/rGaDn4) by darkmagnoblade (https://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Edmonton PRT
07-04-2015, 03:37 PM
Another "shovel ready project" to get funding from other levels of government.

Read: Pigs at the trough...

Last time I looked, we already have a funicular (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-27766528/stock-photo-funicular-accends-in-the-edmonton-convention-center-alberta-canada-the-building-is-built-into.html) in the Edmonton Convention Center

This is a useless boondoggle. Even if they built a PRT line to this site I would be against it simply because it will be a underused route that does not pass the cost benefit analysis.

Gord Lacey
07-04-2015, 03:38 PM
Build it and they will come... right?

IanO
07-04-2015, 03:46 PM
Build it and they will come... right?

Build what where? You are not going to take this down and stroll to Rossdale if you are mobility challenged, you will drive, bus or cab and then explore our new farmer's market, museum, artshab and brewpub and then depart.

Marcel Petrin
07-04-2015, 03:49 PM
This thing seems so incredibly ill-conceived.

Magnoblade
07-04-2015, 04:14 PM
^
http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab275/carlox_gifs3/MR/010.jpg (http://s871.photobucket.com/user/carlox_gifs3/media/MR/010.jpg.html)
http://s871.photobucket.com/user/carlox_gifs3/media/MR/010.jpg.html

Chmilz
07-04-2015, 04:49 PM
This will be the world's most expensive moving toilet to nowhere ever.

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

We don't have an access problem, we have a content problem. The valley is lame-balls.

ajs
07-04-2015, 04:53 PM
Still no regular spring/summer programming at the stage at LMP? Might be a good place to start.

Channing76
07-04-2015, 05:19 PM
They have built funiculars in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook and by gum, it put them on the map!

richardW
07-04-2015, 05:51 PM
Lmao I thought this thing was DOA. Can't believe they are actually thinking of building it. This city sometimes...

Chmilz
07-04-2015, 06:32 PM
When I saw it on the Journal's website I thought it was leftover from April 1st. I was saddened to see it was actually real.

MrOilers
07-04-2015, 08:09 PM
We don't have an access problem, we have a content problem. The valley is lame-balls.

Big time.

jamesacer
07-04-2015, 08:38 PM
Right on! Commercialize a portion of the river valley, and a big FU to those people who don't want any development whatsoever..Provide transit or parking, and people will come. Screw the funicular. I don't get this city sometimes...





We don't have an access problem, we have a content problem. The valley is lame-balls.

Big time.

KC
07-04-2015, 09:50 PM
Wow. All this negativity without any substantive argument as to why it's destined to be a failure.

KC
07-04-2015, 10:05 PM
Another "shovel ready project" to get funding from other levels of government.

Read: Pigs at the trough...

Last time I looked, we already have a funicular (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-27766528/stock-photo-funicular-accends-in-the-edmonton-convention-center-alberta-canada-the-building-is-built-into.html) in the Edmonton Convention Center

...

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

Edmonton PRT
07-04-2015, 10:22 PM
Wow. All this negativity without any substantive argument as to why it's destined to be a failure.

OK, here is a question. Where is the demand or need demonstrated?

KC
07-04-2015, 10:26 PM
Wow. All this negativity without any substantive argument as to why it's destined to be a failure.

OK, here is a question. Where is the demand or need demonstrated?

People don't demand these sorts of things. It may be like Steve Jobs said:

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

Edmonton PRT
07-04-2015, 10:31 PM
Steve Jobs did not create white elephants and Henry Ford did not build funiculars.

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

This ain't...

Drumbones
07-04-2015, 10:32 PM
Build a big bar at the bottom and it will be busy.

Edmonton PRT
07-04-2015, 10:43 PM
...and maybe a strip club with a casino. :rolleyes:

Replacement
07-04-2015, 11:57 PM
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.

MrOilers
08-04-2015, 06:35 AM
I might think differently about this if it wasn't planned on being right next to the Shaw Conference Center.

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

Edmonton PRT
08-04-2015, 07:51 AM
Edmonton has been considering creating mechanized access into the valley for years.

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

They’re expected to discuss the latest plan in May. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/Downtown+funicular+getting+closer+reality+construc tion/10951994/story.html

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

The_Cat
08-04-2015, 08:00 AM
This is some novelty where provincial and federal money has been allocated, and the city has to match. The Hotel MacDonald is a half decent location, but I think the south side of the high level bridge might work better.

nobleea
08-04-2015, 08:41 AM
I would gladly take 34 silver balls sculptures rather than this. This would easily be the biggest waste of money ever. It would end up costing 50% more than the estimate, a few people might use it once, and then it would see maybe 20-30 people per day on average. Then it would break down due to our 'unique climate' and get torn out in 10-15 years.

Bodmanza
08-04-2015, 08:52 AM
As a selfish mountain biker, I would appreciate the help getting out of the valley after an afternoon of trail mashing. The lungs burn as I chug up past the Leg.

That said, just no.

Snake Eyes
08-04-2015, 09:18 AM
Wow, not a popular idea here on C2E!

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

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

Drumbones
08-04-2015, 09:21 AM
Maybe it's just Macdonald Hotel patron pampering.

Snake Eyes
08-04-2015, 09:28 AM
All said, I don't think it would be any eyesore. Another wide set of stairs with bike ramps is a welcome addition too.

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

Edmonton PRT
08-04-2015, 09:42 AM
This is some novelty where provincial and federal money has been allocated, and the city has to match. The Hotel MacDonald is a half decent location, but I think the south side of the high level bridge might work better.

We do not have to match. Since when can the Province or Feds force us to build a project?

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

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

9LSho7AE2yo

zipZ5kwhFfs

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

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3597/3559642857_863d49ec28.jpg http://spacing.ca/montreal/2009/05/26/have-you-tried-the-bixi-yet/

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEeVee7G9LU

MrOilers
08-04-2015, 10:27 AM
Instead of this gimmick, I would rather see this money spent on improving some of the river valley trails, staircases, and then adding some signs so people can find them all easier.

Snake Eyes
08-04-2015, 10:36 AM
^^

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

lat
08-04-2015, 11:43 AM
Didn't see this article posted. It has some information the journal article didn't have.

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

http://www.630ched.com/2015/04/08/planned-funicular-ready-to-go/


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

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

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

http://d2x3wmakafwqf5.cloudfront.net/wordpress/wp-content/blogs.dir/110/files/2015/04/IMG_3847.jpg

Replacement
08-04-2015, 12:01 PM
AS the SCC and other construction hilited the river slopes are unstable, poorly suited for construction, and require massive amounts of footings and engineering to withstand the loose slopes. This issue was also cited with the formerly proposed RAM expansion (on current site) that was to expand it down to the river valley but which was prohibitively expensive to do. LRT tunneling from grandin to U of A was also unexpectedly problematic due to unstable conditions in the banks making the whole project much more difficult

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

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

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

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

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

Can we expect any fact finding before the journalistic nonsense that is being printed?

KC
08-04-2015, 12:08 PM
Didn't see this article posted. It has some information the journal article didn't have.

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

http://www.630ched.com/2015/04/08/planned-funicular-ready-to-go/


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

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

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

http://d2x3wmakafwqf5.cloudfront.net/wordpress/wp-content/blogs.dir/110/files/2015/04/IMG_3847.jpg

Seeing this drawing makes me think the city is getting a grand new staircase with a funicular thrown in.

People against this proposal but for more staircases, etc. aren't addressing the issue of providing better and more equal access to the river valley for those with mobility issues ( incl. those with baby strollers, etc.).

Snake Eyes
08-04-2015, 12:15 PM
Didn't see this article posted. It has some information the journal article didn't have.

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

http://www.630ched.com/2015/04/08/planned-funicular-ready-to-go/


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

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

“The alignment that we’re proposing comes at a bit of angle to the hill, which allows us to lay it quite tight into the hill so it doesn’t stand out in any major way, but fits quite nicely with in the slopes.”http://d2x3wmakafwqf5.cloudfront.net/wordpress/wp-content/blogs.dir/110/files/2015/04/IMG_3847.jpg

Seeing this drawing makes me think the city is getting a grand new staircase with a funicular thrown in.

People against this proposal but for more staircases, etc. aren't addressing the issue of providing better and more equal access to the river valley for those with mobility issues ( incl. those with baby strollers, etc.).

People will get used to it. The funds are there, we use them or lose them. I hope they put a bike ramp along the stairs so people can still choose to walk their bikes up the step.

highlander
08-04-2015, 12:18 PM
There's a parking lot at the bottom of this particular hill, and there are bus stops at the bottom here too, plus there's the SCC Funicular/elevator. In this location more access isn't worth nearly that much money.

Channing
08-04-2015, 12:20 PM
It was at EDC last night.

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

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

Snake Eyes
08-04-2015, 12:24 PM
Hopefully it doesn't turn into an LRT escalator like fiasco.

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

lat
08-04-2015, 12:28 PM
Judging from the perspective on the buildings in the render, it looks like it will come down to somewhere around here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.539047,-113.487848,3a,75y,325.44h,102.63t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sM9Bd4iTX70kkNo8I_Tt18w!2e0

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

Channing
08-04-2015, 12:37 PM
It's at a very early stage, there are lots of moving parts to the design including final orientation and connections.

KC
08-04-2015, 12:55 PM
It was at EDC last night.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Edmonton PRT
08-04-2015, 01:00 PM
Nice image by the artist

http://d2x3wmakafwqf5.cloudfront.net/wordpress/wp-content/blogs.dir/110/files/2015/04/IMG_3847.jpg

Reality sucks...


https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/6688430709_72f8acabc7_z.jpg on my Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6688430283_d1cf4f8c1e_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/bc2XqR) on my Flickr

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

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7700/17054388046_f2660ba417_z.jpgon my Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7603/17054388376_e94358f7d6_z.jpg on my Flickr

Gord Lacey
08-04-2015, 01:04 PM
KC, I think the issue isn't that it will help those groups down from the top, but what are we helping them to? What's the destination at the bottom?

As someone else mentioned, wouldn't this be better used on the South side of the river to take people down to the Kinsman? There's a destination there.

Edmonton PRT
08-04-2015, 01:07 PM
Judging from the perspective on the buildings in the render, it looks like it will come down to somewhere around here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.539047,-113.487848,3a,75y,325.44h,102.63t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sM9Bd4iTX70kkNo8I_Tt18w!2e0

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

Look at your link. Grubby location at the forefront to downtown with a totally unkempt ROW by the COE. They violate their own noxious weed policies and cannot maintain what they have now. The image on your link was taken in June and the gutters are not swept, the curbs all broken and the place is a total mess.

When you Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer need to mow the lawn and trim the hedge, instead build a swimming pool?

Perspective
08-04-2015, 01:13 PM
There is no destination and we want the non-existant destination to be universally accessible? At least the 104street one had the opportunity for development at the bottom, what could possibly be done in this area? I'm so confused

Hilman
08-04-2015, 01:15 PM
City's portion of the $24 million......$500,000, looks like the typical knee jerk reactions on here lol, haters going to hate I guess.

Edmonton PRT
08-04-2015, 01:15 PM
^^ Plus they are taking away the pedestrian bridge. What a farce... :smt120

KC
08-04-2015, 01:16 PM
There is no destination and we want the non-existant destination to be universally accessible? At least the 104street one had the opportunity for development at the bottom, what could possibly be done in this area? I'm so confused

Aren't there a lot of longer-term plans for the chosen destination area? Boat docks etc.

Edmonton PRT
08-04-2015, 01:30 PM
Aren't there a lot of longer-term plans for the chosen destination area? Boat docks etc.

Boat docks are unsuitable on the current side of the river. Boat docks are not 4 season attraction.

Chmilz
08-04-2015, 01:32 PM
City's portion of the $24 million......$500,000, looks like the typical knee jerk reactions on here lol, haters going to hate I guess.
The upfront bill of goods may seem cheap, but wait until you see how much operation and maintenance will be. This is not a good investment.

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

We should spend $24M of our own money to put attractions in the valley instead of using free money on this.

Sonic Death Monkey
08-04-2015, 01:33 PM
https://twitter.com/vineshpratap/status/585879070665113600
vinesh pratap ‏@vineshpratap 36m36 minutes ago
Feedback session on proposed funicular underway at city hall until 2 and then from 4 to 8.

Edmonton PRT
08-04-2015, 01:41 PM
City's portion of the $24 million......$500,000, looks like the typical knee jerk reactions on here lol, haters going to hate I guess.

The Fort Road TOD redevelopment was supposed supposed to have a net cost to the COE of $503,500 in the Administration's 2002 proposal.

How well did that project work?

http://meetville.com/images/quotes/Quotation-George-Santayana-history-Meetville-Quotes-107031.jpg

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/land_sales/Fort_Road_Old_Town_Master_Plan.pdf

Snake Eyes
08-04-2015, 02:00 PM
Is it possible there are plans for pathway conectivity at bottom of funicular? And included in the grant money?

Channing
08-04-2015, 02:04 PM
The current 'plan' has a viewing platform jutting out above the road ROW and current pathways, towards the river. With plans to connect down to the river valley pathways, and the road ROW multi-use-trails.

Snake Eyes
08-04-2015, 02:10 PM
I understand the need to be inclusive for people with mobility issues, but I'm pretty skeptical this is good use of money. I hope I'm proved wrong.

Snake Eyes
08-04-2015, 02:16 PM
Ok, maybe this is 100% unrealistic, but imagine they closed a section of River Valley Road underneath funicular and SCC lookouts, and put some picnic tables and grills there. At least there would be motivation for people with mobility issues to go down there.

JayBee
08-04-2015, 02:22 PM
Stunned that I like this.

Stunned that others are opposed.

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

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

JayBee
08-04-2015, 02:25 PM
^ and the challenges.

Edmonton PRT
08-04-2015, 02:37 PM
$24M for 55 meters of funicular = $430,000,000/km

What makes this more expensive than building a LRT line underground?

Hilman
08-04-2015, 02:45 PM
^ if the City is only paying $500,000 of the $24 million, why wouldn't you do it???


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

http://www.630ched.com/2015/04/08/planned-funicular-ready-to-go/

Channing
08-04-2015, 02:50 PM
$24M for 55 meters of funicular = $430,000,000/km

What makes this more expensive than building a LRT line underground?

Because this project isn't just 55m of funicular. Let's not use straw-men here. You can disagree with the project, but use actual facts, not misrepresentations.

Hilman
08-04-2015, 02:51 PM
$24M for 55 meters of funicular = $430,000,000/km

What makes this more expensive than building a LRT line underground?

Because this project isn't just 55m of funicular. Let's not use straw-men here. You can disagree with the project, but use actual facts, not misrepresentations.

Why would he start using facts now???

KC
08-04-2015, 03:21 PM
I walk across the Ft. Edmonton and Laurier footbridges every so often. Did the Ft. Edmonton one a couple days ago. (Also climbed hundreds of stairs in and out of the Westridge/Wolf Willow valley entrances. Can't imagine anyone with even a simple knee problem doing very well at those climbs.) Now those bridges are wonderful structures. Cost per user, even now, must be astronomical. Over time though that per user cost will fall. Nonetheless those bridges cost a few millions to build to simply allow people to cross the river. Why was that necessary? People can drive or take a bus to Ft. Edmonton, etc. One side of the river is pretty much like the other....

Anyone recall how much those foot bridges cost to build? ;-)

Snake Eyes
08-04-2015, 03:28 PM
So out of curiousity, I'm overlooking where the funicular will be, right now. From the rendering, and looking down (south) it looks like the new staircase and funicular will be angled slighly left, towards the SCC.

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

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

More later...

Edmonton PRT
08-04-2015, 03:29 PM
$24M for 55 meters of funicular = $430,000,000/km

What makes this more expensive than building a LRT line underground?

Because this project isn't just 55m of funicular. Let's not use straw-men here. You can disagree with the project, but use actual facts, not misrepresentations.

Definition of a straw man argument includes "A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument."

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

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

So what are the extras that make the project so expensive? Are the stairs made of gold? I honestly would like to know.

Channing
08-04-2015, 03:56 PM
$24M for 55 meters of funicular = $430,000,000/km

What makes this more expensive than building a LRT line underground?

Because this project isn't just 55m of funicular. Let's not use straw-men here. You can disagree with the project, but use actual facts, not misrepresentations.

Definition of a straw man argument includes "A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument."

Are you uninformed? If not, then the straw man argument accusation is inaccurate.

It's not inaccurate as your audience includes more than just me. Several of which may be far more uniformed than I am.

AAAAE
08-04-2015, 05:41 PM
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.

highlander
08-04-2015, 05:54 PM
I want to see what they plan to do at the bottom, to make it a place. If there will be something done to make it less of a disaster of parkway loops, to make it a real place, i might be able to get on board. Otherwise, I can think of many better ways to spend the money.

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

???

accountingsucks
08-04-2015, 08:30 PM
For those arguing the mobility aspect. OK fine...you could pay someone 100K a year and get a 100K passenger van and still come out ahead in 100 years later compared to this proposal. It would probably be quicker too than this slow moving elevator. By the way....does anyone know why the city can't even maintain the LRT escalators to work 1/3rd of the time?

Edmonton PRT
08-04-2015, 08:47 PM
Hopefully the city will put some thought in at the bottom of this with landscaping and traffic calming measures.

Project creep.

Edmonton PRT
08-04-2015, 08:55 PM
I want to see what they plan to do at the bottom, to make it a place. If there will be something done to make it less of a disaster of parkway loops, to make it a real place, i might be able to get on board. Otherwise, I can think of many better ways to spend the money.

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

???

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

IanO
08-04-2015, 09:21 PM
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

Snake Eyes
08-04-2015, 09:50 PM
I want to see what they plan to do at the bottom, to make it a place. If there will be something done to make it less of a disaster of parkway loops, to make it a real place, i might be able to get on board. Otherwise, I can think of many better ways to spend the money.

<snip>



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

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

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

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

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

lat
08-04-2015, 10:10 PM
This ties into the overall plan for LMP I think...


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

The new restaurant is likely to open in about two years.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/city-moving-forward-on-planned-restaurant-in-louise-mckinney-park-1.2895673

Snake Eyes
08-04-2015, 10:13 PM
^

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

highlander
08-04-2015, 10:17 PM
It's not this or nothing. It's earmarked for river valley access, there could be hundreds of ways to spend it on that...

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

Snake Eyes
08-04-2015, 11:11 PM
^ My understanding is that 2/3s of the funding is specifically earmarked for this project, and it must be completed by 2017.

highlander
08-04-2015, 11:34 PM
I can't argue the time-limit, but wasn't it earlier going to be at funicular, and then a cable-car to rossdale? That makes me think that it's earmarked for something more open, like for "improving river valley access in central Edmonton"

Edmcowboy11
09-04-2015, 12:12 AM
Well I like the idea in principle, and if a large chunk of it is being paid by other levels of government than might as well get something out of this money. What I really would like to see, as I think most here would like to see, is where exactly is this going to end up in the valley. Now if they can improve park space or have amenities that will encourage people to come down into the valley as well as entice residents who live in that general area of Rossdale to use this to get into the downtown easier than great. I want to see more of what this will truly look like though first.

Edmcowboy11
09-04-2015, 01:30 AM
Ok, I just answered some of my own questions this evening as I came across a couple PDF's from the city.

Proposed East Alignment (http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/Mechanized_access_proposed_east_alignment.pdf)
Proposed West Alignment (http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/Mechanized_access_proposed_west_alignment.pdf)

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

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

thegongshow
09-04-2015, 04:54 AM
“It will not go over budget. It will not be a penny more.”

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/news/edmonton/Simons+Funiculì+Funiculà+funicular+strike+note+sho uldn/10955936/story.html?rel=847766

Edmonton PRT
09-04-2015, 05:12 AM
I want to see what they plan to do at the bottom, to make it a place. If there will be something done to make it less of a disaster of parkway loops, to make it a real place, i might be able to get on board. Otherwise, I can think of many better ways to spend the money.

<snip>



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

We are NOT getting this
http://theresourcefulmother.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Quebec-City-Funicular.jpg

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

For both a restaurant and a funicular, the old mantra remains the same: location, location, location. That test shows that neither idea passes the test.

lat
09-04-2015, 07:01 AM
Ok, I just answered some of my own questions this evening as I came across a couple PDF's from the city.

Proposed East Alignment (http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/Mechanized_access_proposed_east_alignment.pdf)
Proposed West Alignment (http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/Mechanized_access_proposed_west_alignment.pdf)

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

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

The West alignment is idiotic. Another situation where they are really only providing one option, but for optics sake, they add another that is so laughable that they are guaranteed to go with the one they want...

The East alignment should go further east before crossing Grierson at the narrowest point, then continue south-east to the riverbank.

The_Cat
09-04-2015, 07:54 AM
I like the East Alignment more too. One thing that would help is bridging the gap across MacDougall Hill. I know that there's supposed to be a bridge in the future, but I think it would be nice to connect with the Telus Plaza walkway.

Chmilz
09-04-2015, 08:07 AM
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.

ajs
09-04-2015, 08:07 AM
Paula Simons column (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/Simons+Funiculì+Funiculà+funicular+strike+note+sho uldn/10955936/story.html) in the Journal today reminds me that dumb ideas can metastasize. Funicular = $1 million for useless temporary structures in Churchill Square as a "festival".

Edmonton PRT
09-04-2015, 08:13 AM
^ Provide security??? How much is that going to cost per year?

IanO
09-04-2015, 08:21 AM
^^^nor do we have a sizeable portion of our city below it AND 38018032108301298 tourists a year.

KC
09-04-2015, 08:31 AM
“It will not go over budget. It will not be a penny more.”

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/news/edmonton/Simons+Funiculì+Funiculà+funicular+strike+note+sho uldn/10955936/story.html?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.”

Edmonton PRT
09-04-2015, 08:53 AM
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/photos-large/CDN/canada-edmonton-convention-centre.jpg http://www.planetware.com/tourist-attractions-/edmonton-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.

KC
09-04-2015, 09:19 AM
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/photos-large/CDN/canada-edmonton-convention-centre.jpg http://www.planetware.com/tourist-attractions-/edmonton-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... )

Edmonton PRT
09-04-2015, 09:23 AM
^ the new proposal does not put the funicular any closer to the river.

KC
09-04-2015, 09:26 AM
^ 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..." :-)

Seniorpreneur
09-04-2015, 10:18 AM
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.

Snake Eyes
09-04-2015, 12:06 PM
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.

Perspective
09-04-2015, 12:58 PM
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

Jaerdo
09-04-2015, 01:02 PM
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.

lat
09-04-2015, 01:21 PM
No idea why the clowns downtown want to put the monorail in such a ridiculous place.

Because monorail.

The_Cat
09-04-2015, 08:40 PM
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.

JayBee
09-04-2015, 08:55 PM
East.

highlander
09-04-2015, 09:10 PM
^^ 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.

JayBee
10-04-2015, 01:08 AM
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.

kkozoriz
10-04-2015, 05:42 PM
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.

ajs
10-04-2015, 07:22 PM
^ 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.

KC
10-04-2015, 08:35 PM
^ 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.

Chmilz
10-04-2015, 09:05 PM
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?

Edmcowboy11
12-04-2015, 09:50 AM
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.

whyteknight
12-04-2015, 11:20 AM
Nice image by the artist

http://d2x3wmakafwqf5.cloudfront.net/wordpress/wp-content/blogs.dir/110/files/2015/04/IMG_3847.jpg

Reality sucks...


https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/6688430709_72f8acabc7_z.jpg on my Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6688430283_d1cf4f8c1e_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/bc2XqR) on my Flickr

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

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7700/17054388046_f2660ba417_z.jpgon my Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7603/17054388376_e94358f7d6_z.jpg 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_government/documents/Mechanized_access_proposed_east_alignment.pdf

Hope that clears things up a tiny bit.

Snake Eyes
12-04-2015, 12:39 PM
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.

ThomasH
12-04-2015, 02:44 PM
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.

highlander
12-04-2015, 03:28 PM
^ 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?

Edmonton PRT
12-04-2015, 07:52 PM
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_government/documents/Mechanized_access_proposed_east_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.

Edmcowboy11
12-04-2015, 09:13 PM
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.

Edmonton PRT
13-04-2015, 05:15 AM
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.

Snake Eyes
20-04-2015, 11:37 PM
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.

JayBee
21-04-2015, 02:07 AM
^ 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.

IanO
12-06-2015, 08:36 AM
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/Funicular+should+built+below+Hotel+Macdonald+repor t+says/11128880/story.html

JayBee
12-06-2015, 08:56 AM
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.

Perspective
12-06-2015, 09:01 AM
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/1395046/cost-for-funicular-in-the-edmonton-river-valley-rises/

IanO
12-06-2015, 09:01 AM
$475,000/365 = 1300 / say $2 each way = 650 rides a day to break even.

Chmilz
12-06-2015, 09:07 AM
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.

Edmonton PRT
12-06-2015, 09:56 AM
The NAIT LRT line was shovel ready and "free" money.

Was it the best idea or should we have looked at alternatives?

lat
12-06-2015, 10:06 AM
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...

IanO
12-06-2015, 10:07 AM
Buying a mini-van just because there are mini-van grants out there is still no reason to buy a mini-van.

Edmonton PRT
12-06-2015, 10:23 AM
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?

Edmonton PRT
12-06-2015, 10:39 AM
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 costsParking 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%?

IanO
12-06-2015, 10:46 AM
Of the 800, how many are doing so for exercise or activity?

Edmonton PRT
12-06-2015, 11:16 AM
$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


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.

IanO
12-06-2015, 11:19 AM
^I'd expect a small token fee, if not great but even worse from a viability issue.

Meo
12-06-2015, 11:19 AM
^ 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)

JayBee
12-06-2015, 11:19 AM
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.

Jaerdo
12-06-2015, 11:27 AM
With true separated grade bike lanes protected by a median running at about $1 million per km (http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/09/19/edmonton-bike-lanes-could-cost-up-to-1-million-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.

JayBee
12-06-2015, 11:40 AM
^ whatever one thinks of the funicular, that money isn't available for bike routes (which I also strongly support, BTW.)

Jaerdo
12-06-2015, 11:50 AM
Right right, because it is not "earmarked" for bike lanes. Of course.

Oldest political trick in the book.

lat
12-06-2015, 11:51 AM
What would it take to decouple this funding from the funicular?

JayBee
12-06-2015, 11:53 AM
^^ 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.

JayBee
12-06-2015, 11:53 AM
What would it take to decouple this funding from the funicular?

A federal election result.

Jaerdo
12-06-2015, 11:56 AM
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/1395046/cost-for-funicular-in-the-edmonton-river-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.

JayBee
12-06-2015, 12:16 PM
^ 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.

highlander
12-06-2015, 12:25 PM
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

highlander
12-06-2015, 12:35 PM
^ 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.

Jaerdo
12-06-2015, 12:41 PM
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.

JayBee
12-06-2015, 12:45 PM
^^ 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.

Jaerdo
12-06-2015, 12:48 PM
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.

JayBee
12-06-2015, 12:50 PM
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.

Jaerdo
12-06-2015, 12:53 PM
^ 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.

JayBee
12-06-2015, 01:05 PM
^ 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.

highlander
12-06-2015, 01:07 PM
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.

Jaerdo
12-06-2015, 01:09 PM
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.

JayBee
12-06-2015, 01:43 PM
^ 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.

B.ike
12-06-2015, 01:48 PM
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.

Edmonton PRT
12-06-2015, 03:26 PM
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.

Jaerdo
12-06-2015, 03:32 PM
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.

Edmonton PRT
12-06-2015, 03:45 PM
Jaerdo, you might like my comments on this recent thread http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=33297

JayBee
12-06-2015, 04:36 PM
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?

Perspective
12-06-2015, 06:13 PM
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 :p

KC
12-06-2015, 09:18 PM
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.

Sonic Death Monkey
18-06-2015, 08:14 PM
Staples: New $24M staircase, funicular would be vital link to river valley trails

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Staples+staircase+funicular+would+vital+link+river +valley/11148378/story.html

richardW
18-06-2015, 08:32 PM
I am confused about this bridge they mention in the story. Where would the beginning and end be?

Edmonton PRT
18-06-2015, 08:58 PM
Just over Grierson Road.

Perspective
18-06-2015, 09:16 PM
a bridge over grierson, you mean like the one at shaw confer... nvm

Edmonton PRT
18-06-2015, 10:13 PM
Yeah, a a funicular like it too. :rolleyes: You know, unique to all of Albert according to the pronouncements.

sundance
22-06-2015, 10:48 AM
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-steel-clad-outdoor-elevator-connects-the-city-and-suburb-in-pamplona/

grish
22-06-2015, 11:06 AM
^ this does not look good to me.

sundance
22-06-2015, 11:12 AM
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
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/4713892.jpg

grish
22-06-2015, 11:20 AM
^ 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.

IanO
22-06-2015, 11:29 AM
A few images from the engineering report, April 24,2015 from edmonton.ca

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x164/coldrsx/coldrsx150/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-22%20at%2011.23.42%20AM_zpspql3o8fu.png

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x164/coldrsx/coldrsx150/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-22%20at%2011.23.23%20AM_zpsdxgbgy1z.png

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x164/coldrsx/coldrsx150/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-22%20at%2011.24.52%20AM_zps95sbm126.png

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x164/coldrsx/coldrsx150/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-22%20at%2011.23.34%20AM_zpsaxxg2o6a.png

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x164/coldrsx/coldrsx150/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-22%20at%2011.23.47%20AM_zpskmgzrj6e.png

richardW
22-06-2015, 12:12 PM
That walkway seems to lead literally to nowhere...

Jaerdo
22-06-2015, 12:16 PM
^ 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.

Snake Eyes
22-06-2015, 12:25 PM
^^

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

Edmonton PRT
22-06-2015, 01:14 PM
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?

sundance
22-06-2015, 02:28 PM
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.

ThomasH
22-06-2015, 05:23 PM
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.

Perspective
22-06-2015, 05:38 PM
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

nobleea
23-06-2015, 10:07 AM
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/edmonton/river-valley-funicular-expected-to-get-lift-from-council-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?

Edmonton PRT
23-06-2015, 10:29 AM
Another shovel ready project to nowhere...

JayBee
23-06-2015, 10:37 AM
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?

Edmonton PRT
23-06-2015, 10:49 AM
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.

JayBee
23-06-2015, 11:04 AM
^ 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.

Edmonton PRT
23-06-2015, 11:13 AM
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?

Sonic Death Monkey
23-06-2015, 11:13 AM
David Staples just tweeted that the funicular has just been approved, no other details yet.

IanO
23-06-2015, 11:19 AM
Excellent news. New pedestrian staircase, bridge & funicular from downtown right to river has council OK! #ejlive

JayBee
23-06-2015, 11:27 AM
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?

moahunter
23-06-2015, 11:34 AM
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.

sundance
23-06-2015, 11:37 AM
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_Level_Bridge_%28Edmonton%29

JayBee
23-06-2015, 11:42 AM
^ 100%, all points.

Perspective
23-06-2015, 11:44 AM
Will it be maintained similar to every single other thing the city has successfully maintained? (see: nothing)

Edmonton PRT
23-06-2015, 11:52 AM
^ the elevator and funicular controls will be maintained by Thales.

They have experience with other Edmonton projects. ;)

Perspective
23-06-2015, 11:58 AM
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.

JayBee
23-06-2015, 12:06 PM
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.

Edmonton PRT
23-06-2015, 12:09 PM
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!!!

JayBee
23-06-2015, 12:14 PM
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?

Edmonton PRT
23-06-2015, 12:21 PM
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.

5We8eqUGya8

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/add-e-simply-add-electricity-to-your-bicycle#/story

Edmonton PRT
23-06-2015, 12:25 PM
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.

JayBee
23-06-2015, 12:26 PM
^^ good idea, but doesn't make McDougall or Grierson safer downhill.

JayBee
23-06-2015, 12:30 PM
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?

Edmonton PRT
23-06-2015, 12:42 PM
Which question?

JayBee
23-06-2015, 12:54 PM
This one:


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.

richardW
23-06-2015, 12:56 PM
The good newS is that the 12 people that use that new velodrome are gonna love this











😉

JayBee
23-06-2015, 01:02 PM
^ attempt at humour noted.

Edmonton PRT
23-06-2015, 01:03 PM
This one:


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?

JayBee
23-06-2015, 01:07 PM
:rolleyes:

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.

Edmonton PRT
23-06-2015, 01:10 PM
How can I answer a question that nobody knows the answer?

You may firmly believe I have godly powers but sorry, I do not. :cool:

KC
23-06-2015, 01:10 PM
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.

grish
23-06-2015, 01:15 PM
^ 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.

JayBee
23-06-2015, 01:17 PM
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. :cool:


Forgive me, I thought you had a basis for your thesis.

JayBee
23-06-2015, 01:20 PM
^ 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.

Sonic Death Monkey
23-06-2015, 01:24 PM
So...did they choose the west alignment or east?

River Valley Green
23-06-2015, 01:41 PM
This thing looks terrible and isn't even a necessity. Why don't they spend it on lowering taxes instead? Fixing roads?

richardW
23-06-2015, 01:48 PM
^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.

River Valley Green
23-06-2015, 01:55 PM
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.

JayBee
23-06-2015, 02:07 PM
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.

moahunter
23-06-2015, 02:14 PM
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/2015/06/22/calgary-opens-a-downtown-protected-bike-lane-network-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/2015/06/22/calgary-opens-a-downtown-protected-bike-lane-network-all-at-once/

http://vipmedia.globalnews.ca/2014/04/cycle_1.jpg?w=1024

http://globalnews.ca/news/2006292/businesses-complain-about-new-calgary-bike-lanes/

Jaerdo
23-06-2015, 02:41 PM
^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.

richardW
23-06-2015, 02:43 PM
^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.

Perspective
23-06-2015, 04:18 PM
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.

KC
23-06-2015, 05:20 PM
^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.

Jaerdo
23-06-2015, 07:57 PM
^ 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.

Sonic Death Monkey
23-06-2015, 08:01 PM
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.

grish
23-06-2015, 08:06 PM
^ 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.

Sonic Death Monkey
23-06-2015, 08:54 PM
^ 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"

grish
23-06-2015, 09:14 PM
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.

Sonic Death Monkey
23-06-2015, 09:49 PM
*** 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.

KC
23-06-2015, 11:03 PM
^ 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

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

The_Cat
23-06-2015, 11:20 PM
I wonder if the signals will work. :-)

grish
24-06-2015, 04:29 AM
^ 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

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

I DID mention "equestrian"... :)

Edmonton PRT
24-06-2015, 05:16 AM
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.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/a2986-incline-railway-ca-1907-edited.jpg?w=625
https://lostyeg.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/first-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/uploads/cache/08/c6/08c61a91b75138a2a1c72dce3bc403ea.jpg http://www.edmontonmapsheritage.ca/location/edmonton-incline-railway/
Ominous

Jaerdo
24-06-2015, 06:19 AM
^ 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?

KC
24-06-2015, 06:46 AM
^ 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.

KC
24-06-2015, 07:04 AM
^ 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

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.

Edmonton PRT
24-06-2015, 07:06 AM
Excellent posts KC and Jaerdo

BTW, are they not going to reduce park access by removing the footbridge for LRT construction?

Jaerdo
24-06-2015, 07:07 AM
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.

Edmonton PRT
24-06-2015, 07:16 AM
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...

http://data2.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ap/a/a021244.jpg www.bac-lac.gc.ca

KC
24-06-2015, 07:17 AM
Paved street? Why on earth was this needed? At what cost! Accessibility to street cars?

http://i0.wp.com/citymuseumedmonton.ca/wp-content/uploads/EA-10-1061.jpg?resize=1030%2C745