Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 357

Thread: Proposed funicular railway would run down Edmontonís 104th Street

  1. #201

    Default

    If this thing ever gets built, people will say "neat!" and drive right on by. As the years go by people will start asking neighbours things like "has anybody ever used that thing?"

  2. #202
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    We definitely don't need a funicular to nowhere. Maybe, someday, if & when there's actually something down in Rossdale that would warant it, perhaps. But that's a long ways off.

    I am curious how they'd do it.... all the funiculars I have seen travel on a fixed grade, and don't have to cross major roads. The proposed route has varying grades and crosses roads.
    Over promise and under deliver. Itís the most Edmonton thing you can do.

  3. #203
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,999

    Default

    ^which = $$$.

    I have been on a funicular in Switz that could do both, but it was far more of a train than downtown to rossdale.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  4. #204
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Again this is going to have a lot of Private money in it... The fed gov't also has special funding for P3's. You gotta use what ya got when ya can get it! the fact that there are a number of private partners that are actively interested in the project tells you that people feel there is enough of a need to warrant this!

    I can understand being all squacky if there was not partners and the city was footing the entire bill plus operation cost, but they aren't and if Pvt business wants to invest in making Edm better lets be open to it despite what we may personally think.
    I'm wondering if you're confusing the willingness of private firms to access City tax dollars to further study the funicular, with a willingness to invest in a funicular railway itself.

    According to the Sustainable Development Report SHE022 there is no private money involved:
    "While this is a design, build, operate
    arrangement, it is not considered a P3
    by definition under the Cityís Public
    Private Partnership Policy (C555) since
    there is no private financing component
    proposed for this project" (page 2 of 3).

  5. #205
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    5,271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    ^which = $$$.

    I have been on a funicular in Switz that could do both, but it was far more of a train than downtown to rossdale.
    Yes and many other cities i have been to...but most connected to something like a metro as in Istanbul. If this one continued to 102 Ave on 104 Street at least it would generate traffic....and if it headed over the bridge up the old brewery road - stopping QE Pool to Sask Drive and onto Whyte...then there would be traffic...lots of it. Lots and Lost

  6. #206
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,547

    Default

    I think the trouble with the funicular is that it seems limited in its range. I agree that it should start at 104 Street and Jasper to capture the LRT traffic. It would be good during games at Telus Field. I also agree that one long-range goal is connecting the funicular to Strathcona.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  7. #207
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,628

    Default

    I'd use the thing if it went over the river and connected Whyte Ave to downtown, allowing me to ride it from Whyte to the games at Telus, or downtown to the market, to see a movie, or whatever. But having it go from downtown to Rossdale when there isn't worth visiting there seems a bit like a waste of money, no matter who is building it.

  8. #208
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    In the short- to medium term the obvious answer seems to be to turn the high level trolley into a year round, scheduled transit route. Deal with Rossdale if and when required
    Over promise and under deliver. Itís the most Edmonton thing you can do.

  9. #209
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,249

    Default

    ^ This. I can't see why we need a funicular running to Strathcona with the High Level trolley right there. However, there is the separate issue of easy transit between Jasper and Whyte Ave that I think ETS should consider. Right now the only route that comes close is the Number 7. This serves Whyte quite well, but misses when it comes to crossing downtown. (Yes, Yes, I know you can transfer at ECC.)

    It would be good to see a route that is a circuit of Jasper and Whyte (perhaps in both directions).

    All this is separate from the funicular.

    Eve

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Again this is going to have a lot of Private money in it... The fed gov't also has special funding for P3's. You gotta use what ya got when ya can get it! the fact that there are a number of private partners that are actively interested in the project tells you that people feel there is enough of a need to warrant this!

    I can understand being all squacky if there was not partners and the city was footing the entire bill plus operation cost, but they aren't and if Pvt business wants to invest in making Edm better lets be open to it despite what we may personally think.
    I'm wondering if you're confusing the willingness of private firms to access City tax dollars to further study the funicular, with a willingness to invest in a funicular railway itself.

    According to the Sustainable Development Report SHE022 there is no private money involved:
    "While this is a design, build, operate
    arrangement, it is not considered a P3
    by definition under the Cityís Public
    Private Partnership Policy (C555) since
    there is no private financing component
    proposed for this project" (page 2 of 3).
    There may not be Private Financing but it still take money to run... we would have to see the actual agreement. I am sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  11. #211
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,161
    Don't feed the trolls!

  12. #212

    Default

    Very exciting...
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  13. #213
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Royal Gardens
    Posts
    1,728

    Default

    Please, please, please, please Santa, not until Rossdale has some destination attractions in place of ....nothing!
    My antidepressent drug of choice is running. Cheaper with less side effects!

  14. #214

    Default

    An incline railway to nowhere.

    Dumbest idea since hybrid diesel buses and changing the name of K-days to the Capital Ex.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 20-12-2012 at 08:02 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  15. #215

    Default

    I'm gonna ride it every day lol!!! By the time it is designed built and operation roseate should be under some development... It's all good!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  16. #216
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    An incline railway to nowhere.

    Dumbest idea since hybrid diesel buses and changing the name of K-days to the Capital Ex.
    although you may to some degree be missing the point... the answer as with so many things edmontonian is not to continue not doing things or doing less. the answer is not to not do the funicular. the answer is to make sure that by the time it is done that rossdale is home to more things than a lovely residential community, some beautiful parks, access to the river, telus field, a repurposed epcor plant... add access to kinsmen, some weirs and canal links, a boutique hotel redevelopment of the old brewery and a few other things and your assessment of "to nowhere" gets really wrong really fast.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  17. #217
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,750

    Default

    Perhaps the money is available now to construct the funicular.
    Even though at this particular moment, it may not lead to anywhere yet.
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

  18. #218
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,085

    Default

    This is interesting:

    "The City has approved capital funding from a combination of municipal, provincial and federal governments to pay for the design and construction of the MRVAS. The City anticipates that maximum funding for this project is $22 million for all studies, design, testing, service alignments, and construction. The City intends to enter into a contract with the Contractor for a five year term with an option for the City to extend the Contract for up to an additional five year term to operate and maintain the system immediately following commissioning of the construction." (Source: NRFP No. 923444, Project Requirements, p. 2 of 12).

    So is this:

    "3.5.6 The City will consider an operating subsidy for the system." (Source: Ibid, p. 9 of 12).

    $22 million seems low for the all-in cost of an MRVAS that runs from Jasper Avenue to the river bank, and crosses 3 arterial roads (River Valley Road, 97 Avenue and 100 Avenue).

    Doing this as a Non-Contract RFP gives the City lots of outs. Will be interesting to see the proposals they get.

    Have to say, I'm also surprised the funding is in place. Must have missed it in the approved 2012-14 Capital Budget.

  19. #219

    Default

    Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Imagine if we built an LRT line out to a farmer's field on the premise that "some day" people will want to go there.

  20. #220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    This is interesting:

    "The City has approved capital funding from a combination of municipal, provincial and federal governments to pay for the design and construction of the MRVAS. The City anticipates that maximum funding for this project is $22 million for all studies, design, testing, service alignments, and construction. The City intends to enter into a contract with the Contractor for a five year term with an option for the City to extend the Contract for up to an additional five year term to operate and maintain the system immediately following commissioning of the construction." (Source: NRFP No. 923444, Project Requirements, p. 2 of 12).

    So is this:

    "3.5.6 The City will consider an operating subsidy for the system." (Source: Ibid, p. 9 of 12).

    $22 million seems low for the all-in cost of an MRVAS that runs from Jasper Avenue to the river bank, and crosses 3 arterial roads (River Valley Road, 97 Avenue and 100 Avenue).

    Doing this as a Non-Contract RFP gives the City lots of outs. Will be interesting to see the proposals they get.

    Have to say, I'm also surprised the funding is in place. Must have missed it in the approved 2012-14 Capital Budget.
    um.. I am not sure anyone said it would go all the way to jasper...
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  21. #221
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Imagine if we built an LRT line out to a farmer's field on the premise that "some day" people will want to go there.
    Yeah imagine if the city had that kind of foresight. Maybe then we wouldn't be paying through the nose to expropriate people's houses.

    Also, Look no further than the SLRT extension to Heritage Valley/Chappelle. That's been in the works for a while (planning-wise) and that area isn't even 1/8th built out yet.

  22. #222
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,085

    Default

    ^^Here are a few more paragraphs from the Non-Contract RFP that address the route and design capacity:

    "3.2.3 Along the preferred alignment, the MRVAS will cover approximately 1.4 kilometres from Jasper Ave along 104 Street, down the river valley embankment continuing on 104 Street and turning southeast to terminate at the repurposed EPCOR power plant.

    3.2.4 The design of the MRVAS should provide an upper terminal at Jasper Avenue, a lower terminal at the repurposed EPCOR power plant, and other potential optional stops/loading and unloading zones as appropriate to the technology and as supported by existing statutory plans for these areas.

    3.2.5 The desired design capacity for the MRVAS is for a minimum of 400 people per hour."
    (Source: NRFP, page 6 of 12)

  23. #223
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,977

    Default

    I'd take this to and from a baseball game. Hope the Capitals are back next season.

    104th Farmer's market, ball game, dinner and drinks downtown, then LRT home. Beautiful.

  24. #224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Imagine if we built an LRT line out to a farmer's field on the premise that "some day" people will want to go there.
    And I might add, we would hope that such a project won't go 10 times over budget like the TOD project on Fort Road.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  25. #225
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,962

    Default

    Time to let the Fort Road project go PRT.

  26. #226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^Here are a few more paragraphs from the Non-Contract RFP that address the route and design capacity:

    "3.2.3 Along the preferred alignment, the MRVAS will cover approximately 1.4 kilometres from Jasper Ave along 104 Street, down the river valley embankment continuing on 104 Street and turning southeast to terminate at the repurposed EPCOR power plant.

    3.2.4 The design of the MRVAS should provide an upper terminal at Jasper Avenue, a lower terminal at the repurposed EPCOR power plant, and other potential optional stops/loading and unloading zones as appropriate to the technology and as supported by existing statutory plans for these areas.

    3.2.5 The desired design capacity for the MRVAS is for a minimum of 400 people per hour."
    (Source: NRFP, page 6 of 12)
    thats awesome... it will be a system like this...

    http://www.funimag.com/photoblog/20051210-005.jpg

    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  27. #227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    I'd take this to and from a baseball game. Hope the Capitals are back next season.

    104th Farmer's market, ball game, dinner and drinks downtown, then LRT home. Beautiful.
    This is an excellent example what we can do with the new link. Plus it would increase Telus Fields utility as an outdoor concert venue; think of it as a transit accessible Commonwealth light

    The trail that runs along the river by the old power plant into the Rossdale community is quite nice, as is the trail running along River Valley road. They would now be accessible for those without the mobility or inclination to hike up the fairly steep hill back to the top of the valley. And tourists would have a much easier time getting to our beautiful river valley from the downtown hotels. You can think of this as giving the river valley street level access to Jasper Avenue

    I think, since the City will be subsidizing this anyways, that the funicular should either be free to use, or free to use with a transit pass/ticket. This would definitely increase ridership. If accessible using the transit pass/ticket, the residents of Rossdale can use this an alternative to the number 9 bus to get out of the valley. You can get some of the same utility of the funicular out of using the number 9 bus, but from a tourism and community development standpoint, I think the Funicular would be better utilized and a lot more fun

  28. #228

    Default

    I think it'd be a much better idea to spur the low floor LRT along 102 Avenue South down 104 Street instead of 107 Street. That way we can actually service much of the proposed development South of downtown. We could even run it to Kinsmen and past down Whyte Avenue and eventually along Calgary Trail.

  29. #229

    Default

    ^ we could service kinsman now withou having to build a new LRT line..... if we had the political will...
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  30. #230
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    A funicular to nowhere. Terrible idea.

    If & when, decades down the line, there is a reason to go down there for anything more than a baseball game, then lets think about it. Until then the resources for this are best used elsewhere.
    Over promise and under deliver. Itís the most Edmonton thing you can do.

  31. #231
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    5,271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    A funicular to nowhere. Terrible idea.

    If & when, decades down the line, there is a reason to go down there for anything more than a baseball game, then lets think about it. Until then the resources for this are best used elsewhere.
    Lets hope the developer RFP has a section to add Best Value ideas etc. and one of them says to run it over the river on the new bridge and up to Whyte.

  32. #232

    Default

    Then I guess we should also build all the high rise dt condos before building parks, refurbing infrastructure and building a new dt community rink/rec center.

    Transportation is the thing that influences the shape and development of our city the most.

    The construction of this will be coupled with development of the lower river lands and is a very exciting and bold move.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  33. #233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    A funicular to nowhere. Terrible idea.

    If & when, decades down the line, there is a reason to go down there for anything more than a baseball game, then lets think about it. Until then the resources for this are best used elsewhere.
    Lets hope the developer RFP has a section to add Best Value ideas etc. and one of them says to run it over the river on the new bridge and up to Whyte.
    Um I would rather expand the street car system to meet up with the LRT and this.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  34. #234
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Montrose
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    A funicular to nowhere. Terrible idea.

    If & when, decades down the line, there is a reason to go down there for anything more than a baseball game, then lets think about it. Until then the resources for this are best used elsewhere.
    Lets hope the developer RFP has a section to add Best Value ideas etc. and one of them says to run it over the river on the new bridge and up to Whyte.
    Um I would rather expand the street car system to meet up with the LRT and this.
    Yea I think a funicular running to Whyte basically defeats the purpose of having the street car and vice versa. I like the idea of running it to Kinsmen with a stop at the Epcor power plant along the way to service Telus Field. This adds more value to the line by linking more attractions
    Vision - The art of seeing the invisible

  35. #235
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,085

    Default

    ^Couldn't interest my Dutch relatives in riding the street car when they were visiting in July. The preferred to rent bikes and explore the river valley from one end to the other.

    Decided to take a ride on the street car myself in September on a weekday over the lunch break. It was an absolutely beautiful, sunny warm day. Despite spectacular views on top of the High Level bridge, there were only 3 people other than me on the street car from Downtown to Whyte Avenue. Other than the driver, I had the street car completely to myself on the trip back.

    I'm definitely skeptical about the viability and constructability of the proposed MRVAS, but prepared to withhold final judgment until seeing what comes back in response to the Non-contract RFP.

    Best of the holiday season to everyone.

  36. #236

    Default

    ^ If you take the streetcar on a Saturday for the farmers market its normally pretty packed!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  37. #237
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,593

    Default

    This funicular could be something really great, especially if the city can develop the old power plant. Also too if they are smart enough to have a couple stops along the way it will help encourage residents to use the service too.

    In regards to the street car, it is a great added service although it needs to have a much more visible presence somehow. If only they could extend the street car line just a bit further south right to Whyte ave at a new stop/station near the new public washrooms I think more and more people would start noticing it and using it to get to the downtown area. If only the railroad bridge was still around at Jasper ave, the street car could have extended all the way to near MacEwan University.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  38. #238

    Default

    When they build that line of the lrt it will
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  39. #239
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    West Edmonton
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    An interesting and historical read with maybe some cautions for the project

    http://www.edmontonheritage.ca/go/he...cline-railway/

    Tom
    "The system was shut down for good in late 1913. Parts of it were dismantled and hauled away. Other bits of its giant innards, including the steam engine, were apparently left buried in the bank, to be discovered whenever construction occurred on the site."

    Alright, everyone. I've solved the funicular problem. All we need to do is dig up the old boiler, convert it to natural gas, and carry on as before.

  40. #240

    Default

    Thanks Tom and Alx_xlA

    Hope we don't repeat history "The project was budgeted at $16,000, but by the time it was done, the total expenditure was just over $30,000."

    "The service just ran downhill financially, and the backers never did recover their full $30,000 investment.

    ďthe owners ( read: taxpayers ) were left with an inclined railway that nobody wanted."
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  41. #241
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,515

    Default

    I'd personally like a gondola system than a funicular, it probably will be cheaper, certainly would have less environmental impact.

  42. #242

    Default

    And with a Whyte Ave terminus.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  43. #243
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,515

    Default

    Having it cross the river stop near Telus Field for phase 1 is good, phase 2 across the river to Kinsmen & Whyte would be nice too. You'd need either a moving sidewalk to get on or evenly spaced stops though with a gondola.

  44. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    I'd personally like a gondola system than a funicular, it probably will be cheaper, certainly would have less environmental impact.
    This.

    If we really need something like this (im still not sold on the idea) I like the idea of a Gondola over an Escalator in a glass box
    youtube.com/BrothersGrim
    facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic

  45. #245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    I'd personally like a gondola system than a funicular, it probably will be cheaper, certainly would have less environmental impact.
    This.

    If we really need something like this (im still not sold on the idea) I like the idea of a Gondola over an Escalator in a glass box
    I never thought of it before it was mentioned here, but I agree that a gondola is better the a funicular in this case. It would provide a better tourist attraction then the funicular. Though I read someplace way earlier in the thread that grade might be too steep for a gondola. The Skyride up Grouse Mountain by Vancouver seems pretty steep to me, though, so I think a gondola/aerial tram should be doable.

  46. #246

    Default

    There are a number of threads on the idea for a gondola crossing the river valley. Like this one:
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...hlight=gondola

    It's certainly cooler than a funicular.
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  47. #247
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    There are a number of threads on the idea for a gondola crossing the river valley. Like this one:
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...hlight=gondola

    It's certainly cooler than a funicular.
    if might be "cooler" but I'm not sure if makes it better sense... i know many people who would ride a funicular regularly depending on the destination that wouldn't ride a gondola on a bet (heights/motion/small spaces etc.). a funicular is also not going to get shut down for wind and is probably more flexible in harsher temperatures than a gondola in terms of maintaining operation as well as maintaining a reasonable temperature for occupants...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  48. #248

    Default

    I disagree completely. I just see the funicular as kinda boring. I've been on the one in old Quebec and it was just nothing to get excited about. However, every gondola ride I've been on has been memorable. Imagine replacing the Jasper and Banff gondolas with funiculars... Even if it is closed from time to time, or even open half the year it's something that people would actually be excited to use because of the views.
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  49. #249

  50. #250
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,515

    Default

    In a way we already have a river valley funicular... at the Convention Center

  51. #251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    One comment in the CBC story suggested hopping the bus up and down the valley free instead. I don't know how you would keep someone from riding all the way to Eaux Claire or Southgate on the 9, for example. If you designated one of the existing routes as the official river valley bus, it might still be cheaper then the funicular or a gondola, even with someone hopping it all the way home rather then to and from the valley. Many people still need to make a transfer or two when using the sytem, so loss of revenue from single trip users should be minimal, anyways. Or you could run a specific route just for the valley using one of smaller van style buses. I imagine the building costs of funicular would cover a driver, vehicle purchase, and vehicle maintenance and operating expenses for a number of years.

  52. #252
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    I disagree completely. I just see the funicular as kinda boring. I've been on the one in old Quebec and it was just nothing to get excited about. However, every gondola ride I've been on has been memorable. Imagine replacing the Jasper and Banff gondolas with funiculars... Even if it is closed from time to time, or even open half the year it's something that people would actually be excited to use because of the views.
    i think the reasons for riding the jasper and banff condolas - and most of the people riding them - aren't the same as the reasons for riding a funicular to rossdale from downtown. my guess is that there aren't too many seniors or mothers with small kids and strollers on those jasper and banff condolas...

    just because gondolas make sense in banff and jasper doesn't mean they make sense in this application. they might but i would highly doubt it given the distances and heights involved. now if you were doing an expo and wanted your exhibitions sites linked each other and to fort edmonton and downtown etc. a funicular won't do what a gondola might but now you're apples and oranges. and even then i know people who visited the expo 86 site on many multiple occassions who never even considered using the gondola to get from one end of the site to the other. you have to decide who you're providing these things for and the pros and cons for both in making a decision. maybe instead of a gondola we could put in a limited/closed loop prt system on very tall guideway towers...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  53. #253
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    my guess is that there aren't too many seniors or mothers with small kids and strollers on those jasper and banff condolas...
    I'm willing to bet that more seniors and mothers with small children take those gondolas than would ride a funicular to Rossdale
    Over promise and under deliver. Itís the most Edmonton thing you can do.

  54. #254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    maybe instead of a gondola we could put in a limited/closed loop prt system on very tall guideway towers...
    I like where you're going with this. We build an awesome multi-loop rollercoaster from one side to the other!

    But in all seriousness I understand your point, but I wish we had something really unique connecting the two sides to the river valley. And I dunno, should our target audience only be women and their baby strollers?
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  55. #255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    maybe instead of a gondola we could put in a limited/closed loop prt system on very tall guideway towers...
    I like where you're going with this. We build an awesome multi-loop rollercoaster from one side to the other!

    But in all seriousness I understand your point, but I wish we had something really unique connecting the two sides to the river valley. And I dunno, should our target audience only be women and their baby strollers?
    We want accessibility for all citizens, including fathers/mothers with strollers, those with wheel chairs, people who use canes/crutches/walkers (not always elderly)/casual cyclists, joggers, and walkers. Be it free bus service, a funicular, a stable gondola, or some other method, the valley should be accessible to everyone. Think of this as an accessibility ramp on steroids; many people made a fuss when they were mandated, but now we take them for granted. It makes sense to have the same thing available to use the longest contiguous parkway in North America!
    Last edited by Ustauk; 03-01-2013 at 12:47 PM.

  56. #256
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    maybe instead of a gondola we could put in a limited/closed loop prt system on very tall guideway towers...
    I like where you're going with this. We build an awesome multi-loop rollercoaster from one side to the other!

    But in all seriousness I understand your point, but I wish we had something really unique connecting the two sides to the river valley. And I dunno, should our target audience only be women and their baby strollers?
    how about a really funky helium fillied top of bank to top of bank bridge that wouldn't need any supports?



    although you would probably have to pay some attention to the guard rails and safety nets at some point...

    why should those parisiennes have all the fun?

    http://designtaxi.com/news/353940/In...poline-Bridge/

    you have to admit it would give a whole different meaning to the term "bouncing around"...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  57. #257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    how about a really funky helium fillied top of bank to top of bank bridge that wouldn't need any supports?

    although you would probably have to pay some attention to the guard rails and safety nets at some point...

    why should those parisiennes have all the fun?

    http://designtaxi.com/news/353940/In...poline-Bridge/

    you have to admit it would give a whole different meaning to the term "bouncing around"...
    That's the spirit.

    "concerns aside, this bridge will definitely take the mundane out ofóand add a dose of anti-gravity thrill toóthe daily commute for millions of pedestrians."
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  58. #258

    Default

    Commute to work on the roller coaster train

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ter-train.html



    The Eco-Ride train feels like a ride on a roller coaster - and that's pretty much what it is. In a few years' time, this cheap and energy-efficient train could be ferrying passengers around areas of Japan devastated by last year's tsunami.

    Developed at Tokyo University's Institute of Industrial Science (IIS), with the help of amusement ride firm Senyo Kogyo, Eco-Ride works in the exactly the same way as a theme park roller coaster. By turning potential energy into kinetic energy, it coasts along its tubular tracks without an engine. The train's speed is controlled by aerodynamics and by "vertical curves", sections of track that form the transition between two sloping segments. The Eco-Ride is set in motion and slowed at stations via rotating wheels between the rails that catch a fin underneath the train.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  59. #259

    Default

    This system can go up and down steep hills

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

  60. #260

    Default

    ill practice by drinking a coffee while riding the mindbender

  61. #261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Commute to work on the roller coaster train

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ter-train.html



    The Eco-Ride train feels like a ride on a roller coaster - and that's pretty much what it is. In a few years' time, this cheap and energy-efficient train could be ferrying passengers around areas of Japan devastated by last year's tsunami.

    Developed at Tokyo University's Institute of Industrial Science (IIS), with the help of amusement ride firm Senyo Kogyo, Eco-Ride works in the exactly the same way as a theme park roller coaster. By turning potential energy into kinetic energy, it coasts along its tubular tracks without an engine. The train's speed is controlled by aerodynamics and by "vertical curves", sections of track that form the transition between two sloping segments. The Eco-Ride is set in motion and slowed at stations via rotating wheels between the rails that catch a fin underneath the train.
    In another thread, you're lamenting against grade separated systems, but it seems your championing it here...
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  62. #262
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,759

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Anybody else notice that the video on the article has an interview with IanO?

  63. #263

    Default

    There is no way they can build a funicular from Jasper to the river for $25M.

    For $25 million we could get this

    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 04-01-2013 at 06:33 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  64. #264
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,515

    Default

    I think we need a huge slide down the river valley somewhere, perhaps Kinsmen Park getting down would be quick but the problem with seniors and kids would still remain, getting back up. And that is the primary reason for the proposed funicular, to get the people back up.

  65. #265

    Default

    I have a solution for that too

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

  66. #266

    Default

    lol. You really have thought of everything.

  67. #267
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    I think we need a huge slide down the river valley somewhere, perhaps Kinsmen Park getting down would be quick but the problem with seniors and kids would still remain, getting back up. And that is the primary reason for the proposed funicular, to get the people back up.
    Forget about the seniors and kids. Getting back up that slide would be a challenge even for the athletically adept.

    Eve

  68. #268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Anybody else notice that the video on the article has an interview with IanO?
    That was added late yesterday Here is the video "Improving River Valley Access:"

    http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada...ID/2322945747/
    www.decl.org

  69. #269
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,999

    Default

    He does have a nice sensibility about him
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  70. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post

    We want accessibility for all citizens, including fathers/mothers with strollers, those with wheel chairs, people who use canes/crutches/walkers (not always elderly)/casual cyclists, joggers, and walkers. Be it free bus service, a funicular, a stable gondola, or some other method, the valley should be accessible to everyone. Think of this as an accessibility ramp on steroids; many people made a fuss when they were mandated, but now we take them for granted. It makes sense to have the same thing available to use the longest contiguous parkway in North America!
    A shuttle bus would cost a lot less than 25m for the few people to old, or unhealthy to walk (which is what the city should be encouraging or biking). Build a lot of bike paths for 25m.

  71. #271
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,249

    Default

    ^ Providing accessibility to the river parks would encourage walking among those who are not quite able to handle the stairs. I really miss the walks I used to be able to have in Saskatoon, Regina and Calgary.

    However, I wouldn't be asking for anything as elaborate as the funicular. I'd be happy with some well designed trails to get down the slopes. Or even maps that are really clear about where it is good to go if you can't do stairs. Yes, I've looked at the walking maps but I've found those really hard to interpret because they seem geared towards hikers rather than walkers.

    Failing that (and I realize that the depth of the valley is a challenge that is not shared by the other cities, I've mentioned), a shuttle bus would do nicely.

    That's not to say that a funicular wouldn't be totally cool but I think the money would be better spent differently.

    Eve

  72. #272

    Default

    ^agreed. Keep in mind we already have excellent pedestrian river valley access (elevator and escalator) through the Shaw conference centre (although not Rosedale). For this bit of the river valley trails are all that are needed, perhaps with a shuttle bus (very cheap option). The novelty factor of a funicular will wear off very fast, maybe it was exciting for generations that used horses for transport, but not to todays generations used to roller coasters for fun, and autos for transport. Money down the drain based on fuddy duddy dreams sums up the funicular concept, it will fail miserably if it goes ahead, which will set back river valley investments.

  73. #273
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post

    We want accessibility for all citizens, including fathers/mothers with strollers, those with wheel chairs, people who use canes/crutches/walkers (not always elderly)/casual cyclists, joggers, and walkers. Be it free bus service, a funicular, a stable gondola, or some other method, the valley should be accessible to everyone. Think of this as an accessibility ramp on steroids; many people made a fuss when they were mandated, but now we take them for granted. It makes sense to have the same thing available to use the longest contiguous parkway in North America!
    A shuttle bus would cost a lot less than 25m for the few people to old, or unhealthy to walk (which is what the city should be encouraging or biking). Build a lot of bike paths for 25m.
    We have that service now. If you have a DATS pass they'll take you wherever you want for the cost of a transit ticket.

    And if you don't want to drive or don't have a car and are fairly mobile, you can take a city bus down to the river valley in numerous places.

    And oce the SE LRT is going, the stop at Muttart will make the river valley even more accessible
    Last edited by 240GLT; 04-01-2013 at 03:35 PM.
    Over promise and under deliver. Itís the most Edmonton thing you can do.

  74. #274
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,050

    Default

    Remember. (Not sure exactly how much of) this money is gift money from other levels of government that can only be spent on improvements in the river valley.

    It can't be spent on potholes, LRT or storm sewers.

    Now, whether a funicular is the best thing on which to spend the money - by all means, any and all ideas are worth considering.
    ... gobsmacked

  75. #275
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,540

    Default

    As for the Shaw, it has to be open to the public all of the time for it to be a viable means of getting into the river valley. What if the conference centre is closed off for an event, or is closed for other reasons?
    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  76. #276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    As for the Shaw, it has to be open to the public all of the time for it to be a viable means of getting into the river valley. What if the conference centre is closed off for an event, or is closed for other reasons?
    It really isn't meant for accessing the river valley... It's neither easy nor convenient nor is it attached to what will be the key residential area of DT the warehouse/campus area. It's not overly accessible by LRT nor are the bus connections that great in that area either.... Not like running it into the heart of DT.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  77. #277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Remember. (Not sure exactly how much of) this money is gift money from other levels of government that can only be spent on improvements in the river valley.

    It can't be spent on potholes, LRT or storm sewers.

    Now, whether a funicular is the best thing on which to spend the money - by all means, any and all ideas are worth considering.
    +1

    This is the idea on the table what is the grant is being proposed to be spent on. If we're not open-minded from the get-go, we may end up with no options and no $25m for Edmonton.

    It really could be a unique feature for Edmonton and downtown that provides a real mobility solution. Short term we'll have this unique transit option for the valley. Longer term, it will increase the viability of the Rossdale site redevelopment and West Rossdale plan becoming reality.
    www.decl.org

  78. #278
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,999

    Default

    Mechanized River Valley Access and Touch the Water Promenade
    Mechanized access from Jasper Avenue to Rossdale, connecting to the river valley trail system and the Touch the Water Promenade. The Promenade will create amenities which could include plazas, walkways and docks around the new Walterdale Bridge and areas adjacent to the EPCOR lands.
    Estimated cost: $34.4-million

    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...nvestment.aspx
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  79. #279
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,050

    Default

    To re-inforce, this is part of a $90 million plan that all three levels of government have already committed to - and which can't be used to fix potholes or build arenas:

    EDMONTON - A $90-million plan to enhance access to the river valley was officially launched Wednesday, with two major projects slated for the Edmonton-area.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...071/story.html
    ... gobsmacked

  80. #280

    Default

    Words fail me whenever I think that this idiotic project is still not dead.

    A total waste of money and the destruction of a really neat staircase. Note: even if the staircase survives, the destruction of the grass strip wrecks the view and destroys all desire actually to walk down the steps.

    And for what? Techno-fetishism, no more.

  81. #281

    Default

    ^That is a bit of an exaggeration? That stairwell is nice enough, but not a long-term solution. We clean up all the garbage every spring, and the grass is not at all cared for.
    www.decl.org

  82. #282
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,050

    Default

    Techno-fetishism ... love it!

    But, let's wait to see what develops at the old power plant site before being too harsh.

    Might also spur development in the ...what are they calling it ... Legislature Precinct.
    ... gobsmacked

  83. #283
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,999

    Default

    I am not sold on it, but long term WITH a redeveloped Rossdale AND infill in West Rossdale it could be quite a neat addition to the city AND improve access.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  84. #284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Words fail me whenever I think that this idiotic project is still not dead.

    A total waste of money and the destruction of a really neat staircase. Note: even if the staircase survives, the destruction of the grass strip wrecks the view and destroys all desire actually to walk down the steps.

    And for what? Techno-fetishism, no more.
    Stairs are awesome... for me. The disabled, families with small children, the elderly, not so much.

    Maybe our green spaces should be reserved for 18-32 year old fitness buffs who run stairs for fun.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  85. #285

    Default

    ^The grass there is only useful to you if you're a mountain goat.
    www.decl.org

  86. #286

    Default

    I can't help but wonder if this thing is going to be ugly.

  87. #287

    Default

    ^ so negative...

    I have only found on funicular that does flat and hills... It's pretty cool.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  88. #288

    Default

    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  89. #289
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,534

    Default

    Awesome news!

    Love the idea.

  90. #290
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    ^ +1
    Edmonton is a diverse landscape of business and culture in a beautiful rivervalley setting

  91. #291

    Default

    yup, me too. Can't wait.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  92. #292
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,812
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  93. #293

    Default

    That actually looks pretty cool. Still not sure if it will see much use though.

  94. #294
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    5,271

    Default

    Exactly where on Jasper Avenue and 104 will this "station" be?

  95. #295

    Default

    I just found one other funicular train that does flat and hill....


    I never claimed that we wold get this exact train I just reported what I have found out there in the "market" as it were.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 24-01-2013 at 01:59 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  96. #296

    Default

    More pics of Innsbruck. To be honest I think this should go over the river to kinsmen.









    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  97. #297

    Default

    Is this going to be a single with vehicle on one line that if you miss it, you have to wait till it travels the entire route? Not very practical or scaleable.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  98. #298

    Default

    ^ my god.. are you ever positive.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  99. #299

    Default

    Here is the same Hungerburgbahn system in 1907
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  100. #300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ my god.. are you ever positive.
    It is an honest question. Do you have an answer?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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