[ChazYEG]

Gotta love it - a private company shouldn't develop the gondola because it falls under ETS's domain, but Edmonton won't build it because they think it's a waste of money compared to bus, LRT, or road infrastructure. It's like a company wanting to sit on a trademark for decades even if they'll never use it, just to make sure nobody else can either.

That's commie 101 for you.If it benefits the public, it needs to be government owned. And if the government can't do it, then it is because it doesn't benefit the public and only lines up the - sic - capitalists pockets.

 

[ClaireYeg]

Warning, this post ended up being a long one (1/2).

"[It] would add a non-essential, redundant transportation corridor to an area well served by many transportation crossings including the new Walterdale Bridge."

I didn't realize that a single vehicle bridge crossing the river is comparable to a gondola that would connect two key pedestrian corridors, the funicular, and the beautiful Rossdale Power Plant. Sure, ETS buses use that bridge too, but those routes are by no means the same. Just the detour to the UofA Transit Centre alone can add a lot of time when compared to going directly to one's destination. And who's to say what qualifies as a "non-essential" trip? Are essential trips only allowed on ETS? Will Prairie Sky prohibit people from using the gondola to access appointments, run errands, or see family and friends? Do the trips that we can make to Southgate via the LRT really count as essential if most are probably to buy non-essential goods - and a fair number of those shoppers are tourists? How does that differ from this? After all, the area around Southgate has a number of other transportation modes as well, including sidewalks and roads! And again, even if lots of the trips on the gondala are non-essential, SO WHAT?? What is the friggin harm in getting something unique here that people WANT to experience even if they don't have to? What joy does living in a city bring if everything there is strictly utilitarian, and you need to leave that city to see anything interesting? And why wouldn't we want to bring things here that encourage people to see Edmonton and experience what we have to offer, as opposed to going to another Canadian city?

"Proponents proffer phrases like — “transit-oriented development” — to feign alignment with the city plan. Without surprise, a private entity is being assisted at the public’s expense by Edmonton’s developer-friendly city administration. This works well in cites where public purpose, community benefit agreements and social procurement are front and centre. In this case, the citizens pay."

Ah, fluff words without any sources or examples to back them up. This can't encourage transit-oriented development... because it can't. The citizens pay for this... because they will. Does the city have an agreement to give PS a cut of Arc revenue, should the two share the Arc system? Not as of now. The Arc revenue goes straight to the systems involved with the tap; ETS gets revenue from taps on ETS routes, StAT gets the revenue from taps on StAT buses, etc. So even if PS did use the same Arc system (keep in mind that, according to @PrairieSkyGondola, they'd need to pay a not-insignificant price to do so), they would (in theory) only get the revenue from taps at gondola card readers.

"it will add an additional electric load to Edmonton’s fossil-fuel heavy grid. We all know we need to reduce electric loads as we green our grid. The addition of a gondola will only burn more coal."

What a strawman this is. Not only does it ignore the fact that facilitating electric modes of mass transportation makes it easier for people to navigate Edmonton without cars (or diesel ETS buses at that), but it also perpetuates a harmful myth about electric transportation in general. They are equating the emissions from the power grid as equivalent to the emissions from fossil fuel-powered vehicles. In reality, research has shown that "under current carbon intensities of electricity generation, electric cars and heat pumps are less emission intensive than fossil-fuel-based alternatives in 53 world regions, representing 95% of the global transport and heating demand. Even if future end-use electrification is not matched by rapid power-sector decarbonization, it will probably reduce emissions in almost all world regions." And the gondola would have even fewer life-cycle emissions than EVs, since each car does not contain its own batteries. Similarly, the gondola would be better for the environment, even with our gas-dominant power grid, compared to conventional vehicles. This is because it is simply more efficient to generate a lot of energy in a few spots and distribute it through the grid than it is to generate a little bit of energy in millions of small engines that each burn their own fuel, start up multiple times per day and often need to warm up for a few minutes each time, etc.

"The city plan is designed to address climate change and add tree canopy and green space. Green jobs and blue and green infrastructure are at the base of most economic-recovery plans that address climate change. The gondola will not help with these core ambitions."

Notice how they neglect to define what blue infrastructure means. Does it have a similar meaning to blue hydrogen, where gas is used to make hydrogen but the emissions are pumped underground? Would their opinion on the gondola change if PS invested in CCS technology? Why is the gondola, which is powered by electricity and will provide mass transportation for pedestrians, not considered blue?

Thanks for that very detailed feedback. We thought we would also provide additional feedback to some of your points. It may take a few posts too.

In June 2018, shortly after the urban gondola idea won The Edmonton Project, and unbeknownst to us, the Edmonton Transit Advisory Board (ETSAB) published a 42 page report titled ‘Urban Gondolas in Public Transit." It stated, "Urban gondolas are highly versatile mass transit solutions that provide fast, reliable, safe, fully accessible and cost-effective transportation into even the most geographically challenging areas. As Edmonton grapples with how to increase transport capacity across our river valley and better connect Downtown and Old Strathcona, a gondola is uniquely well-suited to provide this capacity. ETSAB’s research suggests this is a viable project that warrants further consideration and study." We had no idea this transportation option was being considered nor did we know the report was being published. The report was a watershed piece as it indicated a clear position and recommendation from our transportation board authority that our City would benefit from such an option. It also indicated that it was an essential piece for the sustainable growth of Edmonton.

The discussion around "essential transportation" also relates to the River Valley bylaw. As you may be aware, the bylaw's intention is to protect the North Saskatchewan River Valley & Ravine System from urban development, and some people argue that only "essential transportation" can be considered when it is crossing the river valley. However, what many don't know is that this isn't true for the entire river valley. The River Valley bylaw distinguishes 2 areas: The central zone (Rossdale and Cloverdale) & the rest. It says on page 5, “For the Central area of the River Valley the Plan envisions a sensitive mix of land uses - residential, recreational, institutional and commercial development, which are of varying intensities compatible with Downtown activities. The Concept Plan does not encourage urban development in most of the River Valley. Only in the Central Area will urban communities be developed and maintained.” [2.1] We believe that our project is aligned with the principles outlined by the River Valley Bylaw, offering a barrier-free entry for Edmontonians & visitors into the river valley in a respectful, sustainable & environmentally sensitive manner.

 

[ClaireYeg]

Warning, this post ended up being a long one (1/2).

"[It] would add a non-essential, redundant transportation corridor to an area well served by many transportation crossings including the new Walterdale Bridge."

I didn't realize that a single vehicle bridge crossing the river is comparable to a gondola that would connect two key pedestrian corridors, the funicular, and the beautiful Rossdale Power Plant. Sure, ETS buses use that bridge too, but those routes are by no means the same. Just the detour to the UofA Transit Centre alone can add a lot of time when compared to going directly to one's destination. And who's to say what qualifies as a "non-essential" trip? Are essential trips only allowed on ETS? Will Prairie Sky prohibit people from using the gondola to access appointments, run errands, or see family and friends? Do the trips that we can make to Southgate via the LRT really count as essential if most are probably to buy non-essential goods - and a fair number of those shoppers are tourists? How does that differ from this? After all, the area around Southgate has a number of other transportation modes as well, including sidewalks and roads! And again, even if lots of the trips on the gondala are non-essential, SO WHAT?? What is the friggin harm in getting something unique here that people WANT to experience even if they don't have to? What joy does living in a city bring if everything there is strictly utilitarian, and you need to leave that city to see anything interesting? And why wouldn't we want to bring things here that encourage people to see Edmonton and experience what we have to offer, as opposed to going to another Canadian city?

"Proponents proffer phrases like — “transit-oriented development” — to feign alignment with the city plan. Without surprise, a private entity is being assisted at the public’s expense by Edmonton’s developer-friendly city administration. This works well in cites where public purpose, community benefit agreements and social procurement are front and centre. In this case, the citizens pay."

Ah, fluff words without any sources or examples to back them up. This can't encourage transit-oriented development... because it can't. The citizens pay for this... because they will. Does the city have an agreement to give PS a cut of Arc revenue, should the two share the Arc system? Not as of now. The Arc revenue goes straight to the systems involved with the tap; ETS gets revenue from taps on ETS routes, StAT gets the revenue from taps on StAT buses, etc. So even if PS did use the same Arc system (keep in mind that, according to @PrairieSkyGondola, they'd need to pay a not-insignificant price to do so), they would (in theory) only get the revenue from taps at gondola card readers.

"it will add an additional electric load to Edmonton’s fossil-fuel heavy grid. We all know we need to reduce electric loads as we green our grid. The addition of a gondola will only burn more coal."

What a strawman this is. Not only does it ignore the fact that facilitating electric modes of mass transportation makes it easier for people to navigate Edmonton without cars (or diesel ETS buses at that), but it also perpetuates a harmful myth about electric transportation in general. They are equating the emissions from the power grid as equivalent to the emissions from fossil fuel-powered vehicles. In reality, research has shown that "under current carbon intensities of electricity generation, electric cars and heat pumps are less emission intensive than fossil-fuel-based alternatives in 53 world regions, representing 95% of the global transport and heating demand. Even if future end-use electrification is not matched by rapid power-sector decarbonization, it will probably reduce emissions in almost all world regions." And the gondola would have even fewer life-cycle emissions than EVs, since each car does not contain its own batteries. Similarly, the gondola would be better for the environment, even with our gas-dominant power grid, compared to conventional vehicles. This is because it is simply more efficient to generate a lot of energy in a few spots and distribute it through the grid than it is to generate a little bit of energy in millions of small engines that each burn their own fuel, start up multiple times per day and often need to warm up for a few minutes each time, etc.

"The city plan is designed to address climate change and add tree canopy and green space. Green jobs and blue and green infrastructure are at the base of most economic-recovery plans that address climate change. The gondola will not help with these core ambitions."

Notice how they neglect to define what blue infrastructure means. Does it have a similar meaning to blue hydrogen, where gas is used to make hydrogen but the emissions are pumped underground? Would their opinion on the gondola change if PS invested in CCS technology? Why is the gondola, which is powered by electricity and will provide mass transportation for pedestrians, not considered blue?

We also really appreciated your detailed explanation of the merits of electric modes of mass transportation and we agree with you. From the very beginning, the Prairie Sky Gondola team were especially interested in modern urban ropeway technology because it supports the decarbonization of cities and is an environmentally friendly mobility solution that increases the general quality of life in cities.

As you noted ropeways are electrically operated, and let us indulge in providing you with a detailed list of why it is the most sustainable mode of transportation: No local pollution such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) or particulates, low environmental impact due to smallest physical footprint to alternative mobility solutions, central Electric Drive which has the highest energy efficiency, higher air quality (no fumes), low in noise, lowest land sealing through easy integration in existing infrastructure, and lowest CO2-footprint.

The study conducted by denkstatt GmbH (on behalf of Doppelmayr) shows the massive differences of environmental footprints among the transportation systems bus, tram and cable car. Based on the scenario in La Paz, the study performed Life Cycle Assessments for the existing transportation systems cable car and bus as well as one for a fictional tram. All Life Cycle Assessments had been undertaken according to ISO 14040 & 14044 (GWP: Global Warming Potential and expressed in CO2eq). All results were reviewed by three expert institutions. The underlying scenario focused on the existing cable car route “Linea Roja” which directly connects the higher region “El Alto” with the administrative capital in the valley “La Paz”. The connection is characterized by a height difference of 402 meters. The alternative modes of transport could be bus and/or tram over a distance of 12,4 km, which takes around 18-20 minutes (quickest route). However, the gondola only takes 10 minutes as it floats directly over a distance of 2.349 meters above congested streets. Moreover, users of the cable car never have to wait since the cable car system provides continuous availability of cabins.

Further according to industry research, only cycling or walking is more environmentally friendly at this time. For example, 0.1 kW is consumed per km ropeway trip per passenger. This is the equivalent of blow-drying your hair for 5 minutes. Of note, our cabins and stations will have solar panels to further minimize our use of the electric grid and all of the cabins' energy needs will be satisfied by their individual solar panels.

 

[ClaireYeg]

(2/2)

"Citizens also pay for the degradation of river valley parks, Edmonton’s greatest civic achievement. A gondola would add 13 towers — one as high as 37 metres — with 10 by 10 metre bases to a part of the city prized for its beauty. At one site within Queen Elizabeth Park’s spruce and aspen forest, a key link in the region’s wildlife corridor, heavy equipment would be needed to anchor a tower to bedrock to protect it from a sliding hill."

Again, they complain that "citizens will pay" without backing that claim up. Aside from that, although land degradation is not ideal by any means, this could be a key corridor that connects high traffic areas and provides alternatives to car use - which is both worse for the environment in terms of emissions, and because road infrastructure takes up more space than rail/gondola infrastructure. Did they make similar complains about the Valley Line since it juts through the river valley? And if so, as in this case, what is their alternative to move thousands of people every day? Rely on our road network even more? That would just lead to more road construction and expansions, and further jeopardize our environment - while conversely providing less efficient modes of transportation. I don't know what the ridership projections for the gondola are, but I think it's safe to assume that it has the potential to mirror high frequency bus routes, if not upcoming BRT lines, in terms of daily ridership ridership. And all that using infrastructure with less of a footprint in our environment compared to roads and vehicle bridges.

"As well, the mono-cable style of gondola typically requires a cutline — see Banff and Jasper’s — but even if it’s able to get over most trees, nonstop bobbing of carriages down the slope of Queen Elizabeth Park is sure to disrupt the quiet pleasure in viewing the park’s old growth forest from the other side of the river."

Finally, they admit that one of their arguments is merely conjecture. And now we're getting into frustrating levels of NIMBYism. Not only is densification and reduced car dependence inhibited by people who don't want noisy/crowded neighbourhoods, but now a key mode of mass transportation is seen as bad because people WATCHING A FOREST FROM ACROSS THE RIVER MIGHT DISLIKE THE SOUND OF BOBBING CARRIAGES?? PEOPLE, YOU'RE IN A FRIGGIN CITY - NOT ELK ISLAND NATIONAL PARK. They touted the Walterdale bridge as a good alternative, but what about the traffic noise???? Surely, engines must be louder than something dangling from a cable.

"New York’s Central Park architect Frederick Law Olmsted said, 'a park should present the greatest possible contrast with town conditions.' Today, young people from highrises and walk-ups dotting downtown and Oliver take a break from town conditions by fleeing to the valley below. The water’s edge and the open spaces of Rossdale are fertile soil for quiet contemplation, cycling, walking and jogging. So, why bring more “urban” into this scene? There is nothing in the gondola proposal that adds to the valley as parkland. There’s no start at planting the two million trees called for in the city plan. Nor does it build on the hard work of four generations of Edmontonians securing title to and preserving a forest through the city."

Not all of the river valley is a formal park. I am an environmental purist who opposes the vast majority of developments in the river valley and other natural spaces, but large towers are peanuts compared to the alternative. When we're talking about moving people between the core of our downtown and the second busiest node in our city, we are going to need more infrastructure to move people as we climb towards 2 million residents. Now is the time to decide how we will provide additional transportation capacity, not if we need to. When I'm down by the High Level Bridge, the area still feels plenty natural despite the presence of the bridge and its pillars. Moreso, in fact, than the Walterdale bridge and its two additional lanes of traffic. And this is at the heart of the city, just like the gondola would be.

It is very unrealistic to expect that we are entitled to go to the heart of our city and be surrounded by so much undisturbed nature that we forget where we are. It is a great ideal to strive towards, and I do not wish to see the downtown stretch of the river valley overrun by development, but by limiting mass transportation infrastructure in our core, we are -at best- simply relocating environmental damage and disturbance, and heritage asset loss, to other areas of the city that would see new and expanded road infrastructure to compensate. In fact, with the High Level Bridge likely coming under consideration for partial replacement in the next few decades, we could even see yet another car bridge in the very same area as the gondola ROW if we do not diversify our ways of getting around.

"When the old exhibition grounds — now the baseball stadium — moved to Northlands in 1909, a concrete company asked to buy the land. Looking to the future, the city said no, 'this particular block asked for by this company may be required for park purposes.' In the past year, more than 12,000 households have put up lawn signs saying, “Defend Alberta Parks.” In the last month, Edmontonians have joined Albertans by the thousands in pushing back against the province cancelling the coal policy protecting the Rockies."

Remember: Their ENTIRE environmental argument against the gondola is that some tall trees might need to be cut down due to height conflicts, and some pillars will need to be built. Does that really compare to an entire concrete plant, or coal mining in the rocky mountains? No, it does not. And unlike those two case studies, the gondola would provide a mode of transportation that is better for our environment, better for people who do not have their own vehicles, and could ironically save the river valley from some of the more disruptive infrastructure projects in the pipeline due to our reliance on a mode of transportation that the gondola can help replace.

Here are a few extra comments:

- Our Edmonton ropeway project will have a total of 20 towers, 2 of which will be in the forest (and not 13) and of those 2, only one is in an ecologically sensitive area.
- The highest tower will be 38 meters.
- The cement base will not be 10x10, rather it will be about 2 meters wide, but will need 2-3 meters of clearance around the foundation for maintenance and safety purposes.
- The Project is expecting to attract around 1.7 million roundtrips per year split into different user categories: Domestic tourists, international tourists, other experiential users and urban commuters.
- According to LBS data, there were roughly 240,000 per average Central-to-Central trips on weekdays in 2015 and the gondola will have the capacity to move 1500 people an hour (one way).
- Urban ropeways are not like ski-hills. In an urban environment, ropeways have been developed to be able to have roads, buildings, houses, and trees beneath it. So to be clear, our Edmonton gondola will absolutely not require a cut-line and the cabins will be floating several meters above trees.
- We also agree that the river valley offers a haven for contemplation, but there is also a lot of activity. The river valley is also where most find opportunities for recreation and sports, including team sports, cycling, mountain biking, boating, paddling, etc.
- The opinion piece suggests that everyone has already easy access the river valley. To the author who is lucky to live in Rossdale, it is easy, but for the rest of Edmontonians that is further from the truth. Most people are not athletes, and as such are not able to run or bike down to the river valley. Some may not have a car and many aren't lucky enough to live mere steps from the river valley.
- Research shows that the average North American doesn't walk more than 3 blocks. And if you add an incline, that diminishes the opportunity.
- So most people, especially seniors, people with mobility issues, those who live far or are visiting from out of town - will look at the river valley but find it too challenging to actually get to it to truly benefit from it.
- Our project provides an easy, reliable, direct and year-long barrier-free option that doesn't currently exist.

 

[ClaireYeg]

If it's 10 x 10 m for each support, that's 1300 square metres of land. The Valley Line probably takes 1.5 km x 10 m in the the River Valley (15,000 sq m).

The cement base will not be 10x10, rather it will be about 2 meters or less wide, depending on the height of the tower. It will need 2-3 meters of land around the foundation for maintenance and safety purposes. Most of that land can be activated and landscaped with benches and food truck for example. It doesn't have to remain bare.

 

[ClaireYeg]

Does this need to be deemed 'essential transportation' for it to be beneficial or accepted?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1533680031909588992

No it does not.

The discussion around "essential transportation" relates to the River Valley bylaw. As you may be aware, the bylaw's intention is to protect the North Saskatchewan River Valley & Ravine System from urban development, and some people argue that only "essential transportation" can be considered when it is crossing the river valley. However, what many don't know is that this isn't true for the entire river valley. The River Valley bylaw distinguishes 2 areas: The central zone (Rossdale and Cloverdale) & the rest. It says on page 5, “For the Central area of the River Valley the Plan envisions a sensitive mix of land uses - residential, recreational, institutional and commercial development, which are of varying intensities compatible with Downtown activities. The Concept Plan does not encourage urban development in most of the River Valley. Only in the Central Area will urban communities be developed and maintained.” [2.1] We believe that our project is aligned with the principles outlined by the River Valley Bylaw, offering a barrier-free entry for Edmontonians & visitors into the river valley in a respectful, sustainable & environmentally sensitive manner.

 

[ClaireYeg]

How many more motor vehicles will the gondola take away from crossing into downtown? The High Level and other bridges are jam-packed at rush hour.

That's the hope, that we are able to pick-up latent demand. Many people are using their cars because they haven't found a transportation option that suits their needs. We don't believe in lecturing people to be "better" but rather our position is to instead make it easier for them to chose another option. Some people love to bike, and it really works for them. Others prefer to walk or run. Many use the bus and LRT as efficient and reliable transit modes within their neighbourhoods. However, the car's success partly comes from the fact that it's easy and always available. Our hope is we can shift the needle a bit and offer an option that is easy enough that people chose it. We certainly hope that the fact it will be an all-year round option, with heating and air conditioning, working continuously (thus no need to check the schedule) and on a simple yet direct route, will allow those in Downtown, Rossdale and Old Strathcona to consider it as a convenient option.

 

[ClaireYeg]

UPDATE: One last note, we will be seeking approval of our real estate and infrastructure agreement in August. On Aug 10 we will be in front of Executive Council and on Aug 15 in front of City Council. We would like as many people as possible to show up and sit in Council Chambers. We would also welcome you registering to speak in favour of the project. It would mean a lot to our team, truly. If you have any questions, please email claire@prairieskygondola.com

 

[ClaireYeg]

COMMUNITY POP-UP:
We will be in front of the Old Strathcona's Farmers Market tomorrow. Come say hi, introduce yourselves & ask questions!

Sat, Jun 11 from 9am - 3pm
10310 83 Ave, Edmonton

 

[TAS]

Council had an update today on the city's current financial/capital outlook. Council will have some challenging decisions ahead for the 2023-26 plan.

With that, Coun. Janz asked if the city has any other sources of potential revenue down the line. Aside from property tax, user fees and fines, there are not a lot of other ongoing sources (not counting federal/provincial matching grants and contributions for specific projects).

But here is a project that checks some worthy boxes for the city with also the potential of some added revenue with the land that would be leased, Coun. Janz.
@PrairieSkyGondola - what is the expected annual revenue the city could earn from this project?

Also, does anyone know how much the city is paying to keep the power plant in its current unusable condition? Maybe similar to the historic hangar in Blatchford, the city needs to find a partner and offer up this building for a good deal to unload some costs with potential revenue down the line when the space is eventually activated.

 

[cpnfantstk]

UPDATE: One last note, we will be seeking approval of our real estate and infrastructure agreement in August. On Aug 10 we will be in front of Executive Council and on Aug 15 in front of City Council. We would like as many people as possible to show up and sit in Council Chambers. We would also welcome you registering to speak in favour of the project. It would mean a lot to our team, truly. If you have any questions, please email claire@prairieskygondola.com

I think your project is a game-changer for this city. I love everything about it and appreciate the approach to the public with the transparency . Please ignore any negativity towards this project on social media etc. This city always had an issue with change. This project has function. adds needed character to the city and will help tourism. This is a win-win in so many ways. I'm uncertain if I'll be in the city in August but if there's another way to show my support, let me know.

 

[Platinum107]

UPDATE: One last note, we will be seeking approval of our real estate and infrastructure agreement in August. On Aug 10 we will be in front of Executive Council and on Aug 15 in front of City Council. We would like as many people as possible to show up and sit in Council Chambers. We would also welcome you registering to speak in favour of the project. It would mean a lot to our team, truly. If you have any questions, please email claire@prairieskygondola.com

Count me in!

You guys are doing an awesome job promoting this project and disproving misconceptions around it. I'm telling you that this project is what Edmonton needs more of if it wants to be an interesting city where people want to visit and live. This isn't just about functionality, it's about creating something cool, something people will look at, use, and be like "wow, I really like Edmonton because it has this". <- This, right here, is what makes people look twice and want to come back.

The environmental concerns I'm not even going to touch. It's ridiculous how much people are getting up-in-arms about one of the least disruptive and most eco-friendly modes of transportation, that they don't even have to pay for. the "ETS should run this" argument I don't understand either.

 

[Tbone84]

Count me in!

You guys are doing an awesome job promoting this project and disproving misconceptions around it. I'm telling you that this project is what Edmonton needs more of if it wants to be an interesting city where people want to visit and live. This isn't just about functionality, it's about creating something cool, something people will look at, use, and be like "wow, I really like Edmonton because it has this". <- This, right here, is what makes people look twice and want to come back.

The environmental concerns I'm not even going to touch. It's ridiculous how much people are getting up-in-arms about one of the least disruptive and most eco-friendly modes of transportation, that they don't even have to pay for. the "ETS should run this" argument I don't understand either.

I agree. But I want to add that despite everything people say about the it, WEM is a big tourist attraction in this city. Lots of People know Edmonton because of the mall. So, Edmonton already attracts visitors in the city.
But, I agree that this project will make visitors want to come, and come back to the city. It's also going to be great for people living here. Can't wait for this to be built already.

 

[IanO]

WEM is important to Edmonton, but we need to find ways to draw more people (visitors and residents alike) to central Edmonton to explore our natural assets, Whyte, Downtown and other nearby areas; this would assist with that goal.

Rossdale - looking at you!

 

[ClaireYeg]

I think your project is a game-changer for this city. I love everything about it and appreciate the approach to the public with the transparency . Please ignore any negativity towards this project on social media etc. This city always had an issue with change. This project has function. adds needed character to the city and will help tourism. This is a win-win in so many ways. I'm uncertain if I'll be in the city in August but if there's another way to show my support, let me know.

Yes please! You can join virtually and register to speak, and you can also write a letter of support Please email it to us hello@prairieskygondola.com. Having your perspective as an Edmontonian, sharing where you live and how it would make a difference for you personally would be very very impactful. We need as many letters as possible!