Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gondolas across the River Valley as part of the LRT System

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    ^^
    The Peak 2 Peak Gondola is a tri-cable gondola lift located in Whistler, British Columbia is the first lift to join the two side-by-side mountains. It held the world record for the longest free span between ropeway towers—3.03 kilometres (1.88 miles) until 2017 when the Eibsee Cable Car exceeded it by 189m. It is still the highest point above the ground—436 metres (1,430 feet.) The Peak 2 Peak Gondola was built by the Doppelmayr Garaventa Group in 2007 and 2008 at a cost of CDN$51 million.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_2_Peak_Gondola

    Statistics
    Length: 4.4 km/2.73 mi
    Capacity: 4,100 people per hour
    Line Speed: 27 km/hr (16.8 miles per hour)
    Ride Time: 11 minutes

    4.4 kilometers for $51M in very difficult to access terrain. $11.6 M/kilometer.

    I am just waiting for the COE Administration to poo-poo the idea as impractical, would cost a gadzillion dollars and take 100 years to build.

    ...and yes, there are wheelchair accessible gondolas.


    BTW, I WANT THIS!


    https://www.stanserhorn.ch/en/travel/cabrio/

    Rooftop access. Imagine crossing the river with a spectacular view from the roof of Edmonton's best transit system.

    COE Administration worries about suicide risk...

    Waiting for Moa to worry about fires and (insert disaster here)...
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 07-03-2018, 08:44 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

    Comment


    • #32
      ^Cost 28.1M. You want to cry when you see something like that.

      WE can't have great things here apparently. What a fantastic experience that rooftop cable car would be.
      "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

      Comment


      • #33
        EPRT must have a massive woody this morning.
        A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

        Comment


        • #34
          envious?
          Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

          Comment


          • #35
            Wonderful, something else that'll keep breaking down.

            Comment


            • #36
              No, the reliability of these systems are very high.*


              * as long as the COE has no fingers in the system...

              • Suggest a private company bid on a RFP to build, operate and maintain the system.
              • Fares integrated into the ETS system and fully transferable.
              • Land required on a COE 99 year lease arrangement at no cost to winning bidder.
              Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 07-03-2018, 10:11 AM.
              Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

              Comment


              • #37
                I just wanted to say a personal congrats to Gary and Amber. Whether or not this idea gets built, they put their energy and passion behind an idea and saw it through this competition. They are great folks, and a pleasure to work with. They have worked hard on other initiatives and it is refreshing to see one start to pay off for them.
                President and CEO - Airshow.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I have a question. Did the committee factor in cost when it came to the selections? I mean, it's one thing to come up with a great idea. But it's another to come up with one that is actually cost-effective and feasible in terms of actually getting the millions and millions in funding and capital to make it work.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by River Valley Green View Post
                    I have a question. Did the committee factor in cost when it came to the selections? I mean, it's one thing to come up with a great idea. But it's another to come up with one that is actually cost-effective and feasible in terms of actually getting the millions and millions in funding and capital to make it work.
                    I think there’s a lot of subjectivity, randomness and random luck to such funding. Then in terms of seeking cost effectiveness - that’s really a secondary consideration in the real world of infrastructure spending. Take the Anthony Henday: Was it proven that it would be cost effective before it was funded?

                    I also seem to recall an overpass being built by South Edmonton Common that cost well over $200 million and some of the discussions seriously revolved around what our city looked like with the problems and the lower cost solutions proposed. (Basically cost didn’t matter in that decision - until after the bills came in). Then there’s any added costs in our new “signature” bridge in the river valley over what a basic run of the mill bridge would have cost.

                    So the reality is that the priority given to cost-effectiveness always varies by project and the values of the citizens and decision makers of the day. Many things in our city are likely money losers yet we love them and don’t question or criticize the losses. On other expenditures cost recovery is quite arbitrarily deemed paramount and entirely different qualitative and quantitative assessments are made of those expenditures.
                    Last edited by KC; 07-03-2018, 10:55 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
                      Originally posted by IanO View Post
                      Love it! Let's get it done.
                      I see that your opinion on this idea has reversed 180 degrees.
                      2006 is awhile ago, things change as do plans and needs.


                      Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by KC View Post
                        Originally posted by River Valley Green View Post
                        I have a question. Did the committee factor in cost when it came to the selections? I mean, it's one thing to come up with a great idea. But it's another to come up with one that is actually cost-effective and feasible in terms of actually getting the millions and millions in funding and capital to make it work.
                        I think there’s a lot of subjectivity, randomness and random luck to such funding. Then in terms of seeking cost effectiveness - that’s really a secondary consideration in the real world of infrastructure spending. Take the Anthony Henday: Was it proven that it would be cost effective before it was funded?

                        I also seem to recall an overpass being built by South Edmonton Common that cost well over $200 million and some of the discussions seriously revolved around what our city looked like with the problems and the lower cost solutions proposed. (Basically cost didn’t matter in that decision - until after the bills came in). Then there’s any added costs in our new “signature” bridge in the river valley over what a basic run of the mill bridge would have cost.

                        So the reality is that the priority given to cost-effectiveness always varies by project and the values of the citizens and decision makers of the day. Many things in our city are likely money losers yet we love them and don’t question or criticize the losses. On other expenditures cost recovery is quite arbitrarily deemed paramount and entirely different qualitative and quantitative assessments are made of those expenditures.
                        Yes, but what about this contest specifically? How much is the estimated cost of the gondola concept compared to the advent festival or saunas or treehouse? It seems a lot more. It just seems unfair to have a contest like this unless everyone has the same cost limitations to work within.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by KC View Post
                          Originally posted by River Valley Green View Post
                          I have a question. Did the committee factor in cost when it came to the selections? I mean, it's one thing to come up with a great idea. But it's another to come up with one that is actually cost-effective and feasible in terms of actually getting the millions and millions in funding and capital to make it work.
                          I think there’s a lot of subjectivity, randomness and random luck to such funding. Then in terms of seeking cost effectiveness - that’s really a secondary consideration in the real world of infrastructure spending. Take the Anthony Henday: Was it proven that it would be cost effective before it was funded?

                          I also seem to recall an overpass being built by South Edmonton Common that cost well over $200 million and some of the discussions seriously revolved around what our city looked like with the problems and the lower cost solutions proposed. (Basically cost didn’t matter in that decision - until after the bills came in). Then there’s any added costs in our new “signature” bridge in the river valley over what a basic run of the mill bridge would have cost.

                          So the reality is that the priority given to cost-effectiveness always varies by project and the values of the citizens and decision makers of the day. Many things in our city are likely money losers yet we love them and don’t question or criticize the losses. On other expenditures cost recovery is quite arbitrarily deemed paramount and entirely different qualitative and quantitative assessments are made of those expenditures.
                          Totally agree. Different rules for different projects. I will add that if the COE Administration is behind it, the numbers do not matter and if someone asks, they can create numbers out of thin air.

                          Want to get the project idea started and approved, send a half dozen COE Administration people and 3 Councilors to Bolivia and BANG!, the best idea since sliced bread...


                          An aerial gondola with a practical public transit alternative goal is sorely needed. IMHO, it should run from Rexall to Whyte Ave is a straight line south would be a fantastic first step. If proved successful, then the same manufacturer/operator could be rewarded with a line from the UofA to Bonnie Doon Mall. Then a West Edmonton line from DT to WEM.
                          Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by River Valley Green View Post
                            Originally posted by KC View Post
                            Originally posted by River Valley Green View Post
                            I have a question. Did the committee factor in cost when it came to the selections? I mean, it's one thing to come up with a great idea. But it's another to come up with one that is actually cost-effective and feasible in terms of actually getting the millions and millions in funding and capital to make it work.
                            I think there’s a lot of subjectivity, randomness and random luck to such funding. Then in terms of seeking cost effectiveness - that’s really a secondary consideration in the real world of infrastructure spending. Take the Anthony Henday: Was it proven that it would be cost effective before it was funded?

                            I also seem to recall an overpass being built by South Edmonton Common that cost well over $200 million and some of the discussions seriously revolved around what our city looked like with the problems and the lower cost solutions proposed. (Basically cost didn’t matter in that decision - until after the bills came in). Then there’s any added costs in our new “signature” bridge in the river valley over what a basic run of the mill bridge would have cost.

                            So the reality is that the priority given to cost-effectiveness always varies by project and the values of the citizens and decision makers of the day. Many things in our city are likely money losers yet we love them and don’t question or criticize the losses. On other expenditures cost recovery is quite arbitrarily deemed paramount and entirely different qualitative and quantitative assessments are made of those expenditures.
                            Yes, but what about this contest specifically? How much is the estimated cost of the gondola concept compared to the advent festival or saunas or treehouse? It seems a lot more. It just seems unfair to have a contest like this unless everyone has the same cost limitations to work within.
                            These ideas were not rated by their exponential different costs. You could combine the treehouse, sauna and gondola into one project if you were creative. LOL

                            yes, really



                            https://velvetescape.com/sauna-gondola-yllas-finland/
                            Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              At $20 mill, I could buy in - not so much at $60.

                              But, to be picky, I wonder how many people are going to get on an off at Rossdale? Well, maybe if Triple A B/ball comes back.

                              Like I said, that's being picky - done right, I can see this being really popular with both locals and tourists.
                              ... gobsmacked

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Exponentially a better cost/benefit ratio than the funicular project.
                                Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X