[M II A II R II K]

Gondola service pondered for N.W. Calgary


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/05/02/calgary-gondola-lrt-service.html?ref=rss


Calgary Transit is looking at the possibility of building a gondola to ferry commuters from a northwest LRT station to other nearby high-demand areas not directly served by the C-Train.

- "We're looking at moving people from an LRT station to a high activity centre that's not currently on an LRT line. And that would be something like the Foothills hospital, Alberta Children's Hospital or the University of Calgary," he said. McKendrick said since there's no room in that area for a special transit lane, adding more buses is not a better solution. "There's only so many buses you can pump through those areas without them being stuck in their own traffic jam," he said.

- "There's a variety of benefits," said Steven Dale, a Toronto-based expert on the transit systems. "One is the cost. On a sort of apples to apples comparison, you're generally looking a price point of about one quarter to half the price of light rail," he said, adding that gondolas are quick to build and generally very safe. McKendrick said the city believes it could build the northwest gondola system for about $5 to 10 million per kilometre.

.....

 

[Tewder]

Damn, I was picturing canals and thinking 'O Solo Mio'!

 

[ssiguy2]

Vancouver is thinking of doing a similar project to SFU. If you are not aware SFU sits on top of Burnaby Mountain and although there is ability for more buses, in the winter they often have to cancel all bus service to SFU as the buses can't make it up the steep grade. There may be little or no snow at the nearby SkyTrain University Station but there will be quite a bit up at SFU.
They figure they will save hundreds of millions by not building an LRT or SkyTrain branch up the mountain by building a Gondala and they are automated which also greatly reduces operating costs and they would be faster and more frequent.

 

[taal]

Vancouver is thinking of doing a similar project to SFU. If you are not aware SFU sits on top of Burnaby Mountain and although there is ability for more buses, in the winter they often have to cancel all bus service to SFU as the buses can't make it up the steep grade. There may be little or no snow at the nearby SkyTrain University Station but there will be quite a bit up at SFU.
They figure they will save hundreds of millions by not building an LRT or SkyTrain branch up the mountain by building a Gondala and they are automated which also greatly reduces operating costs and they would be faster and more frequent.

What sort of capity would such a line have out of curiosty ?

 

[Steven Dale]

Hi there,

New to the forum and UT, I'm Steven Dale the guy quoted in those stories. I thought it might be appropriate to jump in here and answer any questions people have.

Taal,

The technology that they're looking at in Vancouver is what's known as a 3S system. Those can have capacities of up to 6,000 - 8,000 pphpd, with 38-person vehicles spaced roughly 30 seconds apart.

To put that in perspective, Toronto's Queen Streetcar line has a current offered capacity of only ~2,500 pphpd at peak rush hour.

Steven Dale

 

[Justin10000]

And so begins surface rail vs. some niche technology debate!

 

[Steven Dale]

Nope. No mode debates coming from me. Every mode has its place.

I just use the Queen streetcar line as a comparative example to demonstrate that a gondola system is capable of carrying enough people to be effective as mass public transit.

That's in no way meant to suggest we should be using gondolas on Queen Street.

 

[Justin10000]

Nope. No mode debates coming from me. Every mode has its place.

I just use the Queen streetcar line as a comparative example to demonstrate that a gondola system is capable of carrying enough people to be effective as mass public transit.

That's in no way meant to suggest we should be using gondolas on Queen Street.

Or could have just not even mentioned the Queen Streetcar. It's not the first time you did this.

Anyways, not here to argue. Just pointing out the typical LRT vs nche debates that spring up from time to time.

 

[Steven Dale]

Or could have just not even mentioned the Queen Streetcar. It's not the first time you did this.

Anyways, not here to argue. Just pointing out the typical LRT vs nche debates that spring up from time to time.

Not sure when you would've seen me mention that before, but it is a point I use fairly often for comparison purposes.

I'm not here to argue either. Mode choice debates really don't help advance transit much. I find they typically just descend into a kind of techno-zealotry - which doesn't help anyone.

 

[gweed123]

I think where this mode is most useful is for a medium capacity, high frequency link between two nodes, with little to no stops needed on-route. From a transit station to a major mall or university is a great example of this.

I think that one of the more practical uses for this technology in the GTA would be a link between Square One and the Cooksville GO station. High freqency needed, only a moderate capacity needed, and relatively inexpensive to build.

 

[Asterix]

The technology that they're looking at in Vancouver is what's known as a 3S system. Those can have capacities of up to 6,000 - 8,000 pphpd, with 38-person vehicles spaced roughly 30 seconds apart.

Surprised no one else has commented on this yet. 30 second headway means 120 vehicles per hour. 120/hr * 38/vehicle = 4560, a long way from the suggested capacity.

This theoretical capacity is assuming perfect operation whereby in much less than 30 seconds (15 - 20?) you can get all 38 people off the vehicle and load it up with a new set of 38 people for a system with only a start and an end station. Anything added in between is only going to dramatically slash your capacity.

 

[M II A II R II K]

As suggested before, the Don Valley corridor that's underserved and difficult to put mass transit on the ground there or under it.

 

[gweed123]

As suggested before, the Don Valley corridor that's underserved and difficult to put mass transit on the ground there or under it.

But the Don Valley corridor (specifically leading into downtown) has travel demands well in excess of 15,000 pphpd in some places. Even a quad-stacked gondola wouldn't be able to handle that type of traffic.

Gondolas fall into the same general ridership capacity block as curbside BRT does. If a curbside BRT couldn't handle the load, neither could a gondola. This is why I suggested the Square One to Cooksville route. It's within the range of having an express bus efficiently run it, so therefore it would be within the range of effective gondola operation as well.

 

[ssiguy2]

I think the real issue is that, unlike Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, and cities around the world are looking to alternative forms of public transport that offer excellent quality of service without the traditional rail prices. Toronto has this myopic view of transit where it's either LRT or nothing {Miller} or underground or nothing {Ford}. There are cost effective alternatives that Toronto and many other cities refused to even consider and thus end up paying for it dearly. The US cities mania to build LRT is an example. So many US cities have been on the LRT hysteria without really examing what the best options are.
One only has to look at Dallas and Seattle as examples. While Dallas has been building LRT at a furious pace in her laudable desire to get people out of their cars the return on investment has been abysmal. It now has the largest LRT network in the US with over 100km of line but still only brings in 66,000 ppd even with the new recent extensions. Seattle's record is even worse. It spent a whopping $2.6 billion on an 28 Lrt from downtown to the airport which still uses many ROW no where near where the populace is and is not even grade separated and is only getting ridership levels of 26,000 ppd. Now she is extending the system up to U of Washington and that tiny 5 km underground extension is costing another $2 billion. To add insult to injury the populace never even wanted the LRT. In 2 different plebisites the populas turned down LRT and wanted to a monorail but the powers that be went ahead and built an LRT system that can't even be automated so it is now a drain on the systems operational budget. I shudder to think how far those funds would have gone if they had both built Ottawa style Transitways but they hopped on the LRT bandwagon for no other reason than that "everyone else had one".
The opposite can also be true where more traditional systems could be used more effectively. In the 1970s when cities that were building rapid transit meant subway or nothing Edmonton bucked the trend and brought back rapid transit LRT and started the LRT revolution across NA. Ottawa and Pittsburg also started their own revolutions with separated busways as they knew it best suited their needs and budgets and are glad they did.
My point is that it is essential that cities that want to enter the 21st century must not only learn from to run systems more effectively but also explore new transit alternatives that reflect 21st century traffic and development realities of our large urban centres and not just laughingly right them off as toys or niche technology.

 

[howl]

I don’t think a gondola could ever replace an existing transit line in the GTA and from my understanding that is NOT what the gondola proposed in Calgary is doing. An equivalent service in Toronto might be an express gondola from Union Station to the Island Airport or from Union to the East Bay Front.