News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

Oh goodness, perish the thought of us building anything for tourism in Edmonton! That would just be shocking and unacceptable!

Have you considered the fact that we already build things for tourists, such as the Heritage Streetcar and 100 St Funicular? Just wondering.

Not to mention tourists and locals alike would benefit from a direct Strathcona-DT connection that is integrated with ETS. It doesn't have to be an either/or, but purely investing in tourism at the expense of something that would benefit people that actually live here is foolish, as seen in countless other cities around the world.
 
ETS doing a cable car from misecordia to university, and then one from Strathcona to downtown would be incredible.

I really think those formats might be best with the crossings.

Similar to coastal cities with ferries as a key part of their transit, we could have a few gondolas!
 
ETS doing a cable car from misecordia to university, and then one from Strathcona to downtown would be incredible.

I really think those formats might be best with the crossings.

Similar to coastal cities with ferries as a key part of their transit, we could have a few gondolas!
Cable cars are the most affordable way to make this connection. Obviously I'm in favour of an LRT line along this alignment, but an LRT wouldn't be as direct in the north/south direction.

I would go to Strathcona more, or consider moving there if it had this connection.
 
I’m hoping all these posts about gondolas leads to the construction of some gondolas. 🚡🚠

I live near Old Strathcona and would love a gondola to get downtown.
 
ChazYEG said:
The actual passenger capacity was not substantially lower than the Valley Line, for example, and it would've provided a connection right into the heart of Whyte Ave. The Valley Line has a capacity of about 6500 passengers per hour per direction, currently. The Gondola had a projection of starting at 4000 and ramp up to 6000 over the course of the first 6 months.

The main problem with the gondola, aside from building over a sacred burial site, is that it was designed as a private transit system, separate from ETS. This would all but guarantee it as a tourist service. If you and your destination aren't within walking distance of a gondola station, then if you're already taking LRT or the bus, you're going to have to pay two fares. This is an unnecessary barrier. Real public transit between these two destinations that integrates with the existing public transit system is what's needed, for something that people can regularly use within their existing commutes and journeys. The gondola would effectively be another version of the High Level Streetcar in usage.
Main problem for me is that the gondola projections are BS. Where are the thousands of riders coming from? Even if ETS owned it there would be a need for bus connectivity and where would that be located and what would that do to traffic. As a tourist amenity - sure if Edmonton has money to burn.
 
ChazYEG said:
The actual passenger capacity was not substantially lower than the Valley Line, for example, and it would've provided a connection right into the heart of Whyte Ave. The Valley Line has a capacity of about 6500 passengers per hour per direction, currently. The Gondola had a projection of starting at 4000 and ramp up to 6000 over the course of the first 6 months.


Main problem for me is that the gondola projections are BS. Where are the thousands of riders coming from? Even if ETS owned it there would be a need for bus connectivity and where would that be located and what would that do to traffic. As a tourist amenity - sure if Edmonton has money to burn.
Again tourism should not be an "afterthought". We have overlooked the tourism industry for too long, and it is getting to the point where it is now actually holding back growth in other areas. Example - by not being tourist friendly we also lose out on foreign investment in things like tech industry.
 
Again tourism should not be an "afterthought". We have overlooked the tourism industry for too long, and it is getting to the point where it is now actually holding back growth in other areas. Example - by not being tourist friendly we also lose out on foreign investment in things like tech industry.
A place that was clueless about tourism or didn't care would locate a train station away from its transit centers, away from its core and next to a major freeway.

Then it would be surprised when visitors publicly complained about a long walk in the cold to get somewhere. Oh yes, we did that and then we wonder why our reputation is not so great.
 
Again tourism should not be an "afterthought". We have overlooked the tourism industry for too long, and it is getting to the point where it is now actually holding back growth in other areas. Example - by not being tourist friendly we also lose out on foreign investment in things like tech industry.

Who is saying tourism has to be an afterthought?

That being said, I would be leery of making Edmonton too attractive to tourists. We are far from there right now but tourism turns into overtourism and whatever economic benefits may be derived are canceled out by all of the congestion, destruction, and decreased quality of life for people who actually live in a particular place. See: Paris, Venice, Banff, Itsukushima, San Francisco, Hawaii, Vinicunca, Lisbon, etc.
 
Who is saying tourism has to be an afterthought?

That being said, I would be leery of making Edmonton too attractive to tourists. We are far from there right now but tourism turns into overtourism and whatever economic benefits may be derived are canceled out by all of the congestion, destruction, and decreased quality of life for people who actually live in a particular place. See: Paris, Venice, Banff, Itsukushima, San Francisco, Hawaii, Vinicunca, Lisbon, etc.
I really don’t think that we need to worry about over-tourism in Edmonton. We are a barely 100-year old city situated in cold flat prairie, so I don’t think we have the cultural, climatic or nature-derived pull (unlike Rome, or Miami, or Banff) so we need to worry about getting whatever we can.
 
I really don’t think that we need to worry about over-tourism in Edmonton. We are a barely 100-year old city situated in cold flat prairie, so I don’t think we have the cultural, climatic or nature-derived pull (unlike Rome, or Miami, or Banff) so we need to worry about getting whatever we can.

Again, nobody is saying tourism should be an afterthought. But a tourist gondola vs ETS-integrated rapid transit that would benefit both locals and visitors alike? Yeah, I'm gonna go with the latter, especially since tourism-oriented alternatives already exist.
 
A place that was clueless about tourism or didn't care would locate a train station away from its transit centers, away from its core and next to a major freeway.

Then it would be surprised when visitors publicly complained about a long walk in the cold to get somewhere. Oh yes, we did that and then we wonder why our reputation is not so great.
What is your problem?
 
If you and your destination aren't within walking distance of a gondola station, then if you're already taking LRT or the bus, you're going to have to pay two fares.
So, I am still under NDA so I can't share the actual materials, but their plan all along was to have it integrated with ETS using the ARC card, and the fare to use it would be just slightly higher than the regular fare.
Something in the realm of $5 ~5.50, and if your entered the system there, it would still allow you to continue on ETS just like it is with the LRT and buses.

My NDA expires in August, when it does I'll be glad to share their projections and all of the financials they had.

Their main tourism revenue would come from the space they'd have inthe Rossdale station, as well as the Whyte Ave. The Rossdale station, in particular, was supposed to have a few different attractions, spread over 4 different levels, including a restaurant with scenic views of the river valley, a venue to host events and a small museum/restaurant to be operated by native peoples.

They also had plans of having a larger, fancier cabin that would run roughly once every 10 regular ones, that would offer better views and would be targeted at tourists, and this one would be more expensive and not connect to ETS
 
Last edited:
I don't like the implication here that a gondola is inherently a "tourist trap" and therefore not a legitimate form of transit, as if gondola's have never been used as a form of legitimate public transit. There are plenty of examples from around the world of them being used to move people quickly and efficiently around urban areas. These have taken off particularly in South America, and arose for similar reasons as the BRT networks of Guayaquil and others.

- La Paz, Bolivia
- Medellin, Colombia
- Cali, Colombia
etc have all adopted the system

A common factor between all of these is difficult and mountainous terrain, and cash strapped governments looking for ways to further connectivity in their cities. They have been particularly transformative in Medellin and La Paz. While Medellin may have considered tourism as an important part of their system construction, I don't see to many people rushing to La Paz, and yet they built it nonetheless.

Obviously an LRT connection is preferable, and I think it should happen eventually. But the fact of the matter is that to do that, there would either need to be a total rework or replacement for the High Level, which would inevitably be an expensive and arduous affair. For a more local example, just think about pretty much every ski resort, which uses this form of transit to efficiently move people around a mountain.

Urban Gondolas are a legitimate form of transit.
 

Back
Top