News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.6K     0 

mdrejhon said:
There's several ways to this works:
(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.
Click to expand...
For some of these gondola systems, the capsule is stationary because you're standing on a rotating platform.
Click to expand...
you're boarding the raft from a large rotating platform.
Click to expand...
Combined with either a rotating platform or...
Click to expand...

I keep seeing you mention that rotating platforms are common for gondolas - can you provide an example of one? I only ask because I'd like to think I'm very familiar with many ropeways around the world, and I can't think of a single one with a rotating platform loading system.

I've seen rotating platform systems for Intamin rapids rides and other amusement devices, where the loading is done at the centre with the vehicles wrapping around the outside of the disc. But I can't imagine how this could possibly work for a gondola. The boarding is always done on the exterior of the curve through the terminal, and to have the cabin floor flush with a "rotating platform ring", the cabin would have less than 180 degrees of travel through the platform before it would have to lift up (so the platform could clear under it). The only way I could see it working is with a half-wrap 180-degree conveyor system. But again, I'm not familiar with any system anywhere in the world that operates like that.

Some 6-up or 8-up detachable chairlifts do have moving conveyor systems at the load station on one side, on the straight section before the chairs hit an acceleration tire section.

I have seen detachable gondolas where the operator can briefly pause the cabin on the short section of tires which are not driven off of the bull wheel - they are the cadencing tires which control cabin spacing/timing, so they can briefly pause it there, but then it has to rapidly "catch up" to its theoretical grip point on the rope by moving more quickly through the remaining section of the cadencing zone.
 
Yah know... (Coming late to this thread. sorry) What's far more common around the world for traveling up/down hillsides is the funicular. Traveling on wheels, like this:
Satellite


If TWO are working side-by-side, the weight of one coming down can help lift the other car up using (free) gravity. So. Toronto TTC more familiar with vehicles riding on rails? Or wire-hung gondola lifts? (Won't suggest any private company get involved in operating any public vehicles.)
Cheers
Lock
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-gridlock-gondola-riders-join-urban-commuters

I might have mentioned earlier here, or in some other thread (if there is one) about gondolas, that I could see a gondola transit system having some utility in the area between Union and the waterfront. That area has a growing density of people who would like to live in an urban way (less reliance on the personal automobile) but it's not well-served by transit. A gondola system seems like it could be built with much less money, time and political capital than LRTs. Imagine a TTC gondola running Union to CityPlace/Skydome, Liberty Village, Exhibition, Ontario Place and in the other direction Union to Toronto Star to Sugar Beach/George Brown to whatever that eastern development is called to the Portlands. Too bad it wasn't considered as the buildings were being constructed so some small landing spot stations could be incorporated into their podiums. Far fetched maybe, but more useful to a greater number of people here than in something tooling around the Don Valley. Someone tell me why I'm wrong to think that gondolas could have worked in the new developments around the Gardiner.
 
Gondolas generally have much smaller capacity than other transit modes, so they're not great for connecting two high-volume locations. One would have to actually run the numbers to see if such systems would make sense for the areas mentioned. (Even though they weren't planned for, one of the advantages of gondola systems is that they are relatively easy to retrofit in existing spaces because of their small footprint.)

And, to reiterate, the Don Valley proposal is by a private company, not the TTC, and is intended more for tourism than for transit.
 
Tulse said:
Gondolas generally have much smaller capacity than other transit modes, so they're not great for connecting two high-volume locations.
Click to expand...

Whistler's Peak 2 Peak is about as high a capacity as practical: 4100pphpd.

DoppelMayr's claims 5000pphpd for their 3S system but like most manufacturer claims it's seldom achieved in actual practice outside of Asia.
 
Tulse said:
Gondolas generally have much smaller capacity than other transit modes, so they're not great for connecting two high-volume locations. One would have to actually run the numbers to see if such systems would make sense for the areas mentioned. (Even though they weren't planned for, one of the advantages of gondola systems is that they are relatively easy to retrofit in existing spaces because of their small footprint.)

And, to reiterate, the Don Valley proposal is by a private company, not the TTC, and is intended more for tourism than for transit.
Click to expand...
Seems like the system in La Paz is generating something like 70,000 daily riders, which is quite impressive. If we had an equivalently used system charging the standard $3 fare, with the very minimum maintenance/labour costs of gondolas, we would be making $210,000 of daily revenue.

But, the hourly capacity (using La Paz' numbers, 10-seat cars every 10 seconds) is restricted to 3,600 which would be inadequate for the waterfront unless we build multiple lines on the same corridor.

Also, I worry about accessibility, and I do not mean physical. A lot of people suffer from a fear of heights (myself included) and vertigo, etc. Taking a gondola might not be something they want to do to replace their commute.
 
Tulse said:
Gondolas generally have much smaller capacity than other transit modes, so they're not great for connecting two high-volume locations. One would have to actually run the numbers to see if such systems would make sense for the areas mentioned. (Even though they weren't planned for, one of the advantages of gondola systems is that they are relatively easy to retrofit in existing spaces because of their small footprint.)
Click to expand...
Yes, they are less damaging than dynamiting an escarpment or valley for a funicular.

But let's highlight some important additional considerations why a gondola can make sense:
  • A small gondola have a much higher ppphd capacity than a similarly small funicular (the common small tourist types, not the big/long ones or multi-floor ones).

  • A funicular wait can last more than a few minutes as there are only two vehicles.

  • A gondola wait can last only 15 second (at max rope speed, max capsule density) as the rope has a continuous series of capsules.

  • A small 8-person-capsule gondola moves about as many people as a single freeway lane.
    You can have 8-person capsules, 15 second wait per capsule, 32 people per minute.
    That's 1920 peak people per hour per direction (ppphd)
    (typical 5 meter/second maximum rope speed)

  • You can startup a gondola with fewer capsules spaced wider apart, to keep costs low too, and add capsules later (up to manufacturers' specification of maximum capsule density)

  • The cost per ppphd can be about 1/100th of many other modes of transport.
    Moving 1920 people per hour for only 20 million dollars!
    Or even less (Tremblant's gondola cost only 7 million dollars)
    This brings it in reach of private funding.

  • Only six figures a year operating cost, including maintenance cost and once-a-generation rope replacement savings. Operating cost is sometimes on the low-end of the six figures if the amortization is stretched out (running mostly slow-rope-speed operation, requiring less maintenance), with minimum staffing on both ends. You really only need to staff-up during peak/events/heavy operations.

  • At minimum cost operation (low rope speed, offpeak staffing) economics is able break even at only 2 boardings a minute or less -- and only 500 people per day (1/4 of 1 hour of max capacity) -- less than 5% capacity. This makes gondolas quite attractive for private funding. You only need one major event and then the gondola is paid-up in operating costs theoretically fully empty for very possibly a few weeks.

  • Offpeak, you simply run a slower rope speed and spread out the people (each person or couple gets their own capsule). Quieter operation, evening/night operation, scenic ride, the lower wear-and-tear, less power, etc.

  • Modern gondolas have level boarding fully compatible with wheelchairs (motorized allowed) and bikes, and many allow dogs to board. The operator can also pause the gondola for accessible boarding. A typical pause only occurs for 10 seconds and immediately resumes.
(Many of these comes from Doppelmayr documents I've been reading up on, as well as looking at business plans of other gondolas, as well as experiencing quite a few myself including watching a wheelchair user wheel on without any help)

I've already mentioned various details like this before, but it's useful to resummarize for new readers of this thread...

Tulse said:
And, to reiterate, the Don Valley proposal is by a private company, not the TTC, and is intended more for tourism than for transit.
Click to expand...
True, but it also serves a background transportation purpose.

I was at the consulation for the Don Valley Gondola (researching for the Hamilton GagePark-MountainPark gondola for interested stakeholders who wants me to start a gondola advocacy in the 2020s after Hamilton LRT is safely under construction) (Please note, no relation to other potential Hamilton gondolas, James/Beckett/Keanin/etc that are already mentioned in the media or in Transportation Master Plans).

At the consulation, people at the Don Valley consultation indicated they would buy the gondola passes (unlimited rides all year long) just to bring their dog or bike into the Valley, walk dog in valley, make a Don Valley commute a segment of their commute (I guess, preasumably to accelerate a bike ride to certain destinations easily accessible from the bike trail).

So while this is primarily tourist, a portion of people have already indicated they are interested in using the gondola for non-tourist purposes. Especially if the rumored 50 dollar annual unlimited-rides pass is true. Even at 100 dollars for 365 days of unlimited rides, it is a bargain, IMHO.

Gondolas are not always ideal public transit, but they often fill a transportation puzzle somewhere between "walking/bikes" and "trains/buses" and straddles both a Trail Plan and a Public Transit Plan.

Also, it is often hard to categorize gondolas, and its "carnival/ride" reputation often forces the topic to private funding, to avoid taxpayer screams. But it is definitely a useful part of any transportation network. I think a few privately funded gondolas are going to happen in Ontario over the next 25 years, before they begin to become public funded.
 
Last edited:
I agree that a funicular into the Don Valley would indeed be a huge construction nightmare, and more importantly wouldn't solve the problem the DV gondola project does, which is getting people all the way over to the Brickworks.

I really like the DV plan. And I'd be happy to see gondolas used elsewhere if appropriate. I just question how appropriate they actually would be for serious mass transit.
 
Tulse said:
I really like the DV plan. And I'd be happy to see gondolas used elsewhere if appropriate. I just question how appropriate they actually would be for serious mass transit.
Click to expand...
With some cheaper lines costing only the price of 4 new buses -- while lasting longer -- they can be a piece of a transit network.

When you've got a big monster in the way (Don Valley, Hamilton/Niagara Escarpment), having multiple concurrent lines can becomes better mass transit for that geography. Spread larger 4000-ppphd links over multiple sections of the valley, for a combined >10,000 ppphd operation compared to trying to pull the same Valley Problem using buses that goes over snaking road accesses. For some itineraries, compare a 5-minute wait+ride versus a 1-hour wait+ride, and the gondola attracts more transit users on a same-fare convenience. So it can be an excellent mass-transport option for an appropriate cost-prohibitive geography.

For flat corridors like the waterfront, I personally feel the economics are less justifiable and harder to turn it into a true mass-transit system, but it can work from a public-funded perspective.

Private funding of transportation prefers corridors that have few public-funded transport competition of competitive convenience -- and little chance of devastating competition in near future (e.g. A mountain with fewer/slower accesses).
 
Last edited:
typezed said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-gridlock-gondola-riders-join-urban-commuters

I might have mentioned earlier here, or in some other thread (if there is one) about gondolas, that I could see a gondola transit system having some utility in the area between Union and the waterfront. That area has a growing density of people who would like to live in an urban way (less reliance on the personal automobile) but it's not well-served by transit. A gondola system seems like it could be built with much less money, time and political capital than LRTs. Imagine a TTC gondola running Union to CityPlace/Skydome, Liberty Village, Exhibition, Ontario Place and in the other direction Union to Toronto Star to Sugar Beach/George Brown to whatever that eastern development is called to the Portlands. Too bad it wasn't considered as the buildings were being constructed so some small landing spot stations could be incorporated into their podiums. Far fetched maybe, but more useful to a greater number of people here than in something tooling around the Don Valley. Someone tell me why I'm wrong to think that gondolas could have worked in the new developments around the Gardiner.
Click to expand...
Very interesting ideas. I could see it being run over the rail corridor which is currently all dead space aside from train usage. Should be able to find spots for towers here and there in the corridor. Stops at West Don Lands, Distillery, Jarvis (St. Lawrence Market), Union, Rogers Centre, Bathurst (Fort York), Western Battery Rd. and ending where the tracks cross Queen. It would be a great use of the space and would take some pressure off the King and Queen street cars.
 
What Can a Gondola Do for Munich?

Read More: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/07/munich-gondola-aerial-tramway/565493/

.....

This month, the city is discussing a plan to create a new 4.5-kilometer gondola link in the northern part of the city, linking two districts on the internal beltway that are currently poorly connected for everyone except drivers.

- Supported by the mayor, the regional transit minister, and even the opposition parties in the city’s assembly, it’s a plan that has a strong likelihood of being built. It’s still perhaps a little unexpected: Munich is a flat city with a good public transit network. Gondolas have a mixed reputation, having both transformed mobility in some very hilly cities while failing to be more than gimmicky white elephants in others.

- So would Munich’s embrace of the gondola be a good or a bad thing? And why would the city even need one in the first place? The fact is that even the better public transit systems have their limitations. Munich’s subway (U Bahn), Suburban rail (S Bahn), and tram networks offer good coverage of the area, but they all focus primarily on getting people in and out of the city center. This is fine for commuters, but can pose an inconvenience for people in outlying districts who simply want to travel between two adjacent neighborhoods.

- Bus routes compensate for this, but their speed and efficiency is dependent on road traffic. The gondola poses a solution to a small local issue that could, if effective, be rolled out at other sites in the city. The proposed link would connect two subway stations (at Oberwiesenfeld and Studentenstadt) that sit 4.5 kilometers apart on a major road. Despite being close to each other, it’s time-consuming to travel between them, requiring a five-stop subway trip toward the city center, a transfer, and a five-stop trip back out in a different direction.

- The gondola could knit these two districts tidily together. Sailing over the road, the wires would be far cheaper to install than the terrestrial rails of a train or tram, but still ferry up to 4,000 passengers an hour. Land-wise, the gondola would only take up the space that’s necessary to support its towers. Indeed, the road it would follow already has space for these in the median. To make it a fully functioning link, it’s vital that each terminus connects swiftly to the subway, but broadly the idea seems sensible.

- France in particular has embraced the mode with enthusiasm, with five gondola projects currently under construction and due for opening before 2021. The gondola that the French city of Brest opened across its river in November 2016, for example, celebrated its millionth passenger last month—not bad for a metro area of only 300,000 people. Initially resisted by some residents for fear it would provide unwelcome views into people’s houses, Brest resolved the issue ingeniously by installing windows that misted temporarily when the cars neared people’s homes.

- London’s Emirates Air Line nonetheless remains a cautionary tale of what to avoid. Constructed at the time of the Olympics, it was promoted as both a transit link and tourist attraction. Due to a poorly chosen, out-of-the-way location, it hasn’t functioned well as either. — There have been some preposterous suggestions in the German media that Munich’s proposed gondola might possibly be a tourist attraction as well. The route offers little to look at, but proponents are sensibly focusing on its role as a transit fix, rather than a sightseeing adventure.

.....




lead_large.png
 
I was imagining gondola to connect the Blue Scarborough line (the replacement for the SSE) to Castle Frank station on the B-D line, to connect to Kennedy Station, and to connect to the zoo.
ttc.jpg
 

Attachments

  • ttc.jpg
    ttc.jpg
    405.3 KB · Views: 417
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top