I'm confused, though I admit my only gondola experience is at ski areas. All gondolas I've seen slow down to allow passengers to embark and disembark, but the cabs don't stop completely. This kind of gondola would not allow mobility-impaired people, particularly those using assistive devices, sufficient time to enter or exit. Surely the Access for Ontarians with Disabilities Act will require the gondola to be fully accessible to disabled users, won't it? But how could a gondola ever comply with the requirements of the AODA?
There's several ways to this works:
(1) The whole system cable speed is variable, and slows down to 2m/sec offpeak, 5m/sec peak
(2) After detaching, the capsules slow down in the stations even further.
(3) Operator has access to a pause button for more delicate boarding. This is easy with a low-traffic gondola.
(4) On some (not all) of the systems, there is a rotating floor so you've got stationary level boarding for about 10 seconds until the system automatically pauses (e.g. person breaks light beam at the end of rotation). Most wheelchairs can board during this time duration easily.
For some of these gondola systems, the capsule is stationary because you're standing on a rotating platform. Most of the time, a wheelchair can safely board without the system pausing automatically. This only happens when the wheelchair takes too long to board on the rotating platform before, say hitting a sensor such as a light beam or a bump sensor.
For those not familiar, the "relative stationary" concept is a similar principle as the White Water Rafting at Canada's Wonderland -- you're boarding the raft from a large rotating platform. The raft is stationary relative to you. When people take too long to board, the system is paused automatically when bumping against a rod.
I don't think they will use the rotating-platform system, and will just use a simple pause button for the more delicate accessibility situations. At only 100 boardings an hour on a short-distance gondola, this is adequate -- short 5-to-10-second pauses to let a wheelchair board. It actually doesn't really take too much energy at all, to get things moving again. It will all run slower than a ski gondola, at only 2.5 meters per second (Walking distance) so the stop-starts will be really gentle.
It doesn't need to hurry a long lineup of skiiers up the mountain at maximum speed. It is a low-traffic urban gondola that will be running at roughly one-fifth to one-tenth its theoretical maximum throughput (1920 pphd for 8-person capsules every 15s, 5m/sec max speed).
Pausing for accessibility reasons seem to be acceptable, and is common procedure. The accessibility gondola pause is just an "operational procedure" like a bus driver deploying a wheelchair ramp.
__________________
On the topic of throughput, slow running gondola, cost of operations, number of people they quoted...
They said typical 100 people per hour during quiet times, with 400 people per hour more typical.
But the gondola can move 4000 people (2000 per direction) based on 15 seconds at max 5m/sec for 8 person capsules. In transit parlance, that's 1920 pphd (~4000 for both directions combined) if they run at maximum rated speed and stuff each and every capsule (e.g. Taste Of Danforth on a good weekend). 400 people per hour is still only 10% of its total theoretical maximum capacity.
So I had a little fun with some napkin math.
The quoted estimate of 2.5 millon passengers a year is quite plenty yet well under gondola capacity (Say, 400 people per hour from 7am to 11pm for 365 days a year). Theoretical crush traffic is >25M people per year. Yet break even appears to still occur even at <1M people per year, according to my napkin math.
Going by their passenger projections, it a remarkably low capital expenditure cost of only $10 per annual passenger ($20-$25M for 2.5M rides/year). Assuming a 7-year amortization, that's less than $1.50 per ride being used to pay off capital cost, or $3 per roundtrip.
And that's agressive -- longer amortization periods are common too. I wouldn't be surprised to see amortization in the pennies per passenger per year.
The estimated $10 roundtrip quote apparently appears to have a wide safety margin, and it seems $50 or $100 "annual gondola passes" would be fine since it generates return business from people who may otherwise only do one or two rides a year, and great word of mouth from frequent users.
Razor-and-blades approach of free dog walking and gondola ride passes, or discounts for larger groups, are palatable business plans when the increased rides don't operationally cost much due to flat operating expenses. From a POV, you want to move more volume through an underutilized system running at only 10% capacity, so you can increase total profits.
I bet the board of directors (who hate the word "free") will want to charge everybody, but a line is typically drawn somewhere: e.g. babies usually typically ride for free even on private transportation systems, and in airplanes. Or dogs ride free. Etc.
From this perspective: Whatever grudging agreement the board of directors does to price the gondola fare, I'm definitely very interested to see whether the "$50 annual pass" survives capital funding as all investors of a private gondola would have to agree together on the gondola fares. But I'm sure bet a $50 pass will sell like hotcakes, being a fraction of a monthly TTC pass, but for a whole year! Walking the dog, biking in the Valley, shopping at the Market, parking car at Brickworks to go to Danforth or Broadview TTC. [Prediction: Brickworks will start charging for parking once people discover it can be used as a free park-n-ride for downtown commuting]
Unlike airplanes, the coup de grace is the relatively flat operating cost. The cost of operating is relatively flat regardless of the number of rides a day, more linked to the wear and tear. Doing 10x as many passengers could very well cost less than 2x as much (from increased ticket staffing costs, janitorial, and slightly more frequent maintenance for sustained 5m/sec operation) and by then, you're already into very profitable territory.
No wonder urban gondolas rarely fail financially.
Operation costs are literally pennies per passenger (six figure operating costs annually) -- it's really the amortization that will exceed the operation cost. Maintenance is low for a well designed, slow-running gondola as well. And it all looks quite doable in the $20-$25M range given Tremblant costing only $7M for something 5 times longer (albiet simpler stations), the cost chiefly seems to be the challenging geography.
I really truly think the detractors claim of financial boondoggle is really unjustified, and considering this isn't even taxpayer money to begin with.
(I work in the Financial District, so I know a thing or two...)
Governments (Except for South America...) just often simply do not want to use gondolas as transit, due to the carnival factor, while it really has an excellent low capital cost.
