[mdrejhon]

I attended this meeting (of great interest to me for many reasons).
It was extremely educational and allowed me to witness the support/opposition.

I even met UrbanToronto admin interchange42 who also attended!

- Annual gondola passes inexpensive. (rumored $50 or even $100 is cheap for residents)
- 100% private funded, $20-$25 million dollars.
- Wheelchairs, bikes, walkers. No problem. Gapless level boarding easier than subway.
- High safety, pauses automatically if more time needed for boarding (wheelchair, etc).
- Speed 2.5m/sec offpeak, which is extremely quiet + noiseproofing enclosure
- Dogs allowed, free. (Riverdale residents loved idea of walk dog in valley with annual pass)

Panorama. It was very well attended!

Flyers in front of me

Flat level boarding for wheelchairs.

Dogs. Bring your dog down into the valley for walking in the park.

Bikes! Bring it down to the valley for the bike ride...

Community outreach

They even thought of the "White Elephant" factor

To prevent taxpayer rescue -- Gondola systems are easily disassembled and relocated, 20% of gondola market is repurposed gondolas on the used market from other territories after upgrades/etc.


Upper station is cantilevered into valley at back Playtor Park, hidden by the green wall of the park. Noise-proofing enclosure too.


Artist concept of upper station:


Brickworks station at lower end:


Brickworks station map:


This is less than 10% of the slides, but all in all it was an overall great presentation for the first-ever Community Consultation Meeting located anywhere in Ontario for a gondola located within urban territory.

No application has been made to the City, yet.

There were some very testy/vocal people, some were loudly arguing, but consisted of only 15% of the room. 85% of the room was really enthusaic, some extremely wildly. Overall, it went reasonably well, all things considered.

For ongoing developments you should follow their @DVCableCar twitter account.

 

[Tulse]

I'm a big fan of this project, and I was at the meeting as well. I'm glad that you thought there was enthusiasm, as my assessment of the attendees was that there was substantial opposition in the crowd. The main issue seemed to be parking in the area, marked largely by concerns of those very close to the Playter Gardens, especially those who live west of Broadview. This does seem to be a genuine problem that will need to be addressed (perhaps the new surface lot that now blights Danforth just to the east can help with this).

I don't want to belittle the participants, especially those who voiced reasonable concerns, but it also seemed like a lot of the opposition was just free-floating angst from older residents at the neighbourhood changing. One participant complained that we didn't need some sort of toy or fairground attraction, and then proceeded to say what was really needed was an easier way to get down to Evergreen, because the sidewalks are bad and he has to cross a railway line and highway to get to it. He seems to be completely oblivious to how he was actually making the argument for the utility of the project! Several other people complained about various aspects of the Valley that seemed more appropriately addressed by the Parks Department or other branches of the city government rather than this project.

I got the impression that the presenters did not anticipate the kind of pushback they got at the meeting. I really do hope that they can convince the doubters, because I think this is a fantastic project that is both utilitarian but also somewhat whimsical in a city often sorely lacking whimsy.

 

[mdrejhon]

The true NIMBY's were far louder than YIMBY's -- more than an order of magnitude more vocal.

However, the YIMBY's (85%) seemed to outnumber the NIMBY's (15%). Just much quieter. We figured this out when a few YIMBY's started speaking and we noticed very enthusaic clapping by most of the room to their comments. Key is the room response to the "I'm excited" comments.

The NIMBYs, however, totally dominated the microphone, and much more loudly, though!
Substantial vocals, but not substantial numbers.

The Don Valley Cable Car staff will need to appeal to YIMBY's who might be afraid to raise their voice above NIMBY's. One fear I have is that the NIMBY's will be so passionate they could work hard to increase their numbers, resisting change. As part of the Hamilton LRT advocacy we're familiar with this type of fear. This was an excellent learning experience, given as most here are already aware of my interest in seeing a gondola happen in Hamilton between 2020-2030.

 

[44 North]

Ah, interesting. Thanks for the reporting @mdrejhon . Have they given a ballpark estimate for when the public could theoretically be riding this thing?

Re: the issues of parking and NIMBYism around the Playter area, there's no surprises there. The whole block can be a disaster for much of the day/night. Cars coming in/out of the TDSB building on the SW, queues and queue-jumpers trying to get onto N/B DVP, endangered peds trying to cross this onramp, streetcars and buses crawling in/out of Broadview Stn (one of which is the busiest route in the city)... All compounded by the mentally defective drivers with no clue on how to parallel park, creating block-long logjams along Danforth (when really there should be no street parking whatsoever).

One thing that could potentially work in this proposal's favour, or be worked into it altogether, is if the TDSB building on the southside of Danforth were to be developed. It's a sizable property, and was highlighted as a potential for closure due to low enrollment. Being so close to a subway station, and with minimal height restrictions in its vicinity, it could prove to be a windfall for the City/TDSB if it were to be put on the market. Or if this were to be a joint redevelopment (with the City retaining some ownership), part of the site could hypothetically be reserved for the gondola's parking and upper station/platform. Tho I guess in such a scenario the platform would have to be raised significantly for the gondola to go up/over Danforth (or lowered to go under the Viaduct).

*and I see a slide of an aerial render showing the Brick Works station. Do you have one showing an aerial render of the Playter side?

 

[mdrejhon]

Ah, interesting. Thanks for the reporting @mdrejhon . Have they given a ballpark estimate for when the public could theoretically be riding this thing?

Here you go:

Relative prices:


Average price about 10 dollars for roundtrip.

*and I see a slide of an aerial render showing the Brick Works station. Do you have one showing an aerial render of the Playter side?

Overhead view of the Playter Gardens station.


View of Playter Gardens gondola station from Danforth


I've now posted all slides of the Playter Station.
Currently, there isn't a 3D rendering angle view like for Brickworks.

For annual passes, the whisper price was $50 but I think that might be too cheap; but I'd realistically imagine under $100. However, given this type of gondola only has operating expenses in six figures annually (including amortization for long term rope replacement, etc), it could even break even from just those passes alone, and the upselling that will occur during single-ticket purchases.

They said approximately 100 boardings per hour per direction most of the time -- which is less than 2 people per minute. They said they are intentionally running this well under capacity. This is good so it can run slower (more scenic time, quieter, no lineups) and so more people can have their own capsule, families, cyclists, dog walking, etc. The normal offpeak operation speed will be 2.5 meters per second, the speed of a brisk walk. During peak (events, Taste of Danforth, etc) the gondola can run at 5 meters/second and all capsules filled.

Basically the cost should be low enough that large numbers of residents would buy it, just to ride a bike, walk a dog daily, or even just for an occasional visit a few times a year.

Typical ridership:


Side note: They quoted 400 people/hour/direction typical peak but that's not even maximum capacity. I privately napkin calculated a maximum throughput capacity of 1920 people/hour per direction (pphd) based on max 5 m/sec rope speed, 15 second between capsules, 8 person per capsule, all strangers stuffed together ski-resort-style rather than getting their own capsule. This is consistent with throughput in other gondolas of similar form (8-person capsules) running full tilt (ramped up to max 5 meters/second).

I'd imagine they'd only rarely need to use this maximum throughput speed only a few times per year (long lineups requiring stuffing the capsules as quickly as you can). Clearly, they're over-engineering the throughput capacity by an order of magnitude. It appears they are aiming break even is at a tiny fraction of capacity. So just because a gondola is mostly empty, doesn't mean it is not profitable.

It will be easily, most of the time, everybody or every group gets their own private capsule -- couples, dog walkers, cyclists, families, wheelchair and companion, etc. They said they want to avoid lineups forming beyond the gondola stations.

It's going to run really quiet, at just walking speed:


Side note: Slow operation also makes it cheaper: Less electricty, longer amortization due to slower wear-and-tear on equipment and rope.

Technical details, 1km, 4-8min ride, 42 cabins, 8people/cabin, 15-30sec wait time:


Lots of parking at EBW. If you're driving, you can go to EBW and visit Danforth.


I think I've probably posted 25% of the slides now.

 

[gweed123]

I'm pretty impressed with the quality of the presentation (at least based on what's been posted here). Yes, there are NIMBY's with every project, but I'm glad to hear that they're in the minority. At least the project is entirely privately funded, so you don't get the "this is a waste of tax dollars" crowd too.

Is there any kind of official "supporter page", where people can sign up and officially come out in favour of it? If not, that type of thing may prove useful, if nothing else as a "counter-list" to the inevitably NIMBY's "grumpy people who don't like change" list, which is sure to start circulating soon, if it hasn't already.

 

[Tulse]

One thing that could potentially work in this proposal's favour, or be worked into it altogether, is if the TDSB building on the southside of Danforth were to be developed.

The Bullwheel rep said that they had talked to TDSB about possibly using their parking garage there, but the school board was unreceptive. I don't think that TDSB can be counted on to be involved in any way with this project.

 

[Skeezix]

The Bullwheel rep said that they had talked to TDSB about possibly using their parking garage there, but the school board was unreceptive. I don't think that TDSB can be counted on to be involved in any way with this project.

I think 44 North was mentioning the TDSB site in relation to parking only in the event that the TDSB site is sold and redeveloped. TDSB likely isn't interested in any long-term parking arrangement, as it might eventually interfere with the Board's ability to get top dollar for the site at some point in the future.

Worth remembering that TDSB must first offer give other public sector organizations a 90-day window to buy the property at fair market value. The following institutions would have first crack at the property (in this order): French-language public board, English-language separate board, French-language separate board, the closest college, the closest university, the Province, the City, the feds. Only then can they move to the open market. So it's not a given that the site would be sold to the private sector in the event that TDSB eventually declares it surplus.

 

[Skeezix]

Dogs allowed, free.

This alone sells me on the project.

 

[Tulse]

I think 44 North was mentioning the TDSB site in relation to parking only in the event that the TDSB site is sold and redeveloped.

The comment from the presenter last night was that the TDSB sees that property as a long-term asset, so I doubt they would be outright selling it anytime soon.

 

[mdrejhon]

I'm pretty impressed with the quality of the presentation (at least based on what's been posted here). Yes, there are NIMBY's with every project, but I'm glad to hear that they're in the minority. At least the project is entirely privately funded, so you don't get the "this is a waste of tax dollars" crowd too.

Is there any kind of official "supporter page", where people can sign up and officially come out in favour of it?

To be a supporter, join these:

Follow Twitter: @DVCableCar
Like Facebook: Don Valley Cable Car
Newsletter: Signup at bottom-right

It's still super-new.
They will probably give information for supporters to utilize.
I feel it's important we supporters have adequate representation.

Even as a Hamiltonian, if this comes to frutition -- then I must say I'm looking forward to buying my Don Valley Gondola Pass, since it's apparently going to be cheap even for an outsider visiting just a few times a year. Didn't think annual unlimited-rides passes would be offered at less than $100 per year, that's only two lattes a month... (Granted, prices subject to change).

 

[Skeezix]

The comment from the presenter last night was that the TDSB sees that property as a long-term asset, so I doubt they would be outright selling it anytime soon.

That's what they say at all public meetings. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can get a crowd riled up more than a suggestion at a public meeting that a nearby school board property might be sold. Loss of green space! Loss of public land! Condo towers! More traffic! They learned a long time ago that, unless there are actual plans, their public position has no room for speculation.

I suspect that TDSB has no concrete plans for this land at present.

I am sure they see it as an asset - it has a phenomenal location right on the subway, centrally located, with good DVP access (although the site itself has lousy ingress and egress). I've lived on the Danforth for almost 15 years, and for most of that time barely noticed the site. Only this past summer did I walk around it a bit, and posted some photos on the Urban Toronto thread for the site. Some really interesting architecture, albeit slowly rotting as the TDSB neglects it. But when they say it's a long-term asset, they are probably also thinking of land value. If they didn't first have to offer it to other public sector bodies, and could auction it off to developers, it might be surplus already.

At some point, the Province may require TDSB to sell underutilized sites such as this. The final decision might not be the Board's.

ETA: But back to the topic of this thread, I don't think anything is going to happen with this site in the short-term, such that the gondola project might look to it for parking relief. And TDSB isn't going to entertain contractual parking arrangements which could adversely impact/complicate future plans for the lands.

 

[gweed123]

To be a supporter, join these:

Follow Twitter: @DVCableCar
Like Facebook: Don Valley Cable Car
Newsletter: Signup at bottom-right

It's still super-new.
They will probably give information for supporters to utilize.
I feel it's important we supporters have adequate representation.

Even as a Hamiltonian, if this comes to frutition -- then I must say I'm looking forward to buying my Don Valley Gondola Pass, since it's apparently going to be cheap even for an outsider visiting just a few times a year. Didn't think annual unlimited-rides passes would be offered at less than $100 per year, that's only two lattes a month... (Granted, prices subject to change).

Thanks! I wonder if they've had any talks with Bike Share Toronto about some kind of cross-promotional arrangement, where BST members get a discount, or if DVCC riders can get a discount on a day's bike rental, or something. It just seems to me like the two would go very well together. I would think that "Cable Car Day Pass + 4hr bike rental" would be a great combo deal for people looking for a weekend bike trip.

 

[muller877]

To be a supporter, join these:

Follow Twitter: @DVCableCar
Like Facebook: Don Valley Cable Car
Newsletter: Signup at bottom-right

QUOTE]

Some questions I have...did they answer these at the meeting?

We are privatizing part of a ravine (the Playter Garden Station).
- What environmental studies will be done?
- Will this impact future OMB hearings for other ravine construction? (e.g. a large house or private patio on the side of a ravine)
- How much will they be paying the city for rent?
- what is the top of the building? Can it be a green roof that is at the same level as Playter Gardens (effectively making Playter Gardens bigger)?
- The building looks pretty big. What else is in this proposed site (other than a ticket window and the gondola)? Will the city restrict the usage?

General questions:
- do they have an agreement with the owner of the property in the Ravine? (City or Brickworks or another party?)
- if it does fail will there be a trust account set up to remove all infrastructure and revert to natural state? (instead of the city paying)
- Does the transit laws allow for a private transit company in Toronto? Does this require a provincial or municipal change in law?

 

[mdrejhon]

Thanks! I wonder if they've had any talks with Bike Share Toronto about some kind of cross-promotional arrangement, where BST members get a discount, or if DVCC riders can get a discount on a day's bike rental, or something. It just seems to me like the two would go very well together. I would think that "Cable Car Day Pass + 4hr bike rental" would be a great combo deal for people looking for a weekend bike trip.

Tie-ups does make a lot of sense, especially once the project is well under way.
And especially if Toronto Bike Share upgrades to smartbikes (like SoBi), and expands their coverage area to encompass a large part of the Don Valley as well.

Some questions I have...did they answer these at the meeting?

We are privatizing part of a ravine (the Playter Garden Station).
- What environmental studies will be done?
- Will this impact future OMB hearings for other ravine construction? (e.g. a large house or private patio on the side of a ravine)
- How much will they be paying the city for rent?
- what is the top of the building? Can it be a green roof that is at the same level as Playter Gardens (effectively making Playter Gardens bigger)?
- The building looks pretty big. What else is in this proposed site (other than a ticket window and the gondola)? Will the city restrict the usage?

General questions:
- do they have an agreement with the owner of the property in the Ravine? (City or Brickworks or another party?)
- if it does fail will there be a trust account set up to remove all infrastructure and revert to natural state? (instead of the city paying)
- Does the transit laws allow for a private transit company in Toronto? Does this require a provincial or municipal change in law?

I'll let someone (who attended) answer the questions in detail. My deafness limits what I am able to overhear. I'm not sure what the economic relationship will be (e.g. leased land, privatized land, profit cut to city, etc). They did say that a percentage of profits would go into the Don Valley environment itself.

That said:
- No application has been made to the city yet (there was a slide saying this in big text)
- Brickworks is fully onboard (however, not sure of other stakeholders). I heard Danforth BIA likes it too. Many stakeholders seem on board.
- Slide said it is a piece of recreational infrastructure rather than transit. This gets around the transit law issue. Claims to be first new recreational infrastructure built since Ontario Place shut down. (Makes sense... Private tour buses are allowed)