[dunno]

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.

I never said that a gondola as a type of transportation is inherently a tourist trap. I know how it works in Medellin. I merely stated that the way it was to be set up, as something independent of the local public transportation system, would likely skew it in that direction (although @ChazYEG's post does clarify this a bit in a good way).

And also the High Level isn't the only place a crossing could be made. I shared a visual example of another pathway that could be used. There are probably at least 2 further crossing locations that could be pursued.

 

[erudyk_29]

I never said that a gondola as a type of transportation is inherently a tourist trap. I know how it works in Medellin. I merely stated that the way it was to be set up, as something independent of the local public transportation system, would likely skew it in that direction (although @ChazYEG's post does clarify this a bit in a good way).

And also the High Level isn't the only place a crossing could be made. I shared a visual example of another pathway that could be used. There are probably at least 2 further crossing locations that could be pursued.

Understood, my apologies I thought you were talking about gondolas in general. There were other commenters who were explicitly against gondola as a form of transit in general however so that response was more directed to them. I see your map now but I'm not sure about that purple line, it would have to ascend a hell of a grade to get up the Valley in that short of distance, particularly on the southside and may require some kind of spiral tunnel style scenario. The Valley Line trains seem to struggle a bit with the grade at the Muttart and that would be significantly steeper. Potentially it could stay underground until Gateway and ascend slowly in a tunnel?

 

[dunno]

Understood, my apologies I thought you were talking about gondolas in general. There were other commenters who were explicitly against gondola as a form of transit in general however so that response was more directed to them. I see your map now but I'm not sure about that purple line, it would have to ascend a hell of a grade to get up the Valley in that short of distance, particularly on the southside and may require some kind of spiral tunnel style scenario. The Valley Line trains seem to struggle a bit with the grade at the Muttart and that would be significantly steeper. Potentially it could stay underground until Gateway and ascend slowly in a tunnel?

No problem!

For my hypothetical, I didn't have one specific vision for it, but there's probably a combination of above and below ground. Where it splits off on 105 St & 105 Ave, it would probably descend into an underground tube from 104 Ave until 98 or 99 Ave, after which point it would pierce out and become slightly above grade (thus not bringing the rail as low as the ground elevation and keeping it from being as steep to climb). It'd continue as a sort of Skytrain-esque set up in parallel to the Walterdale (similar to the Dudley Menzies, except for longer due to the more gradual sloping in this area) and cross over Walterdale Hill to run where Fort Hill Rd is. It'd then puncture underground again at the incline just south of the Duggan Bridge and continue underground until south of Whyte. Duggan Bridge would likely need to be rebuilt in some capacity to accommodate this.

There's a similar version to this but instead of it crossing at 105 St/the Walterdale, it crosses east of the power plant and runs underneath Calgary Trail or Gateway Blvd.

Both of these are expensive prospects, don't get me wrong. But would be invaluable additions to our transportation systems and reduce travel friction between our two most dominant core neighbourhoods.

A third option would be a crossing around the Low Level and James MacDonald (haven't personally thought out how a train would get down there tbh) and then going down 99 St/Scona Road until Whyte.

I will say a gondola also works well here due to the awkward elevations and slopes, but if it's done it needs to be integrated with ETS so that it's viable for regular commuting and travel, not just a fun, quirky Saturday afternoon excursion for suburbanites or for tourists.

 

[Gronk!]

When linking downtown to Old Strathcona via LRT or gondola, let's not forget about the indigenous burial grounds near the Rossdale Plant. After all, it was those burial grounds that eventually led to the Prairie Sky Gondola project getting nixed by council. So tread carefully, my friends.

 

[Barnaby]

When linking downtown to Old Strathcona via LRT or gondola, let's not forget about the indigenous burial grounds near the Rossdale Plant. After all, it was those burial grounds that eventually led to the Prairie Sky Gondola project getting nixed by council. So tread carefully, my friends.

I think it's safe to say that we're not in favour of digging up graves. An alternate route is obviously not out of the question. But I do believe the burial ground site talk was used by a naive, and new council to kill a good transit project without offering adequate solutions. They made a mistake.

I've said it before on this forum that I believe this would be a viable ETS project without PSG due to the very low cost compared to an LRT connection.

 

[dunno]

When linking downtown to Old Strathcona via LRT or gondola, let's not forget about the indigenous burial grounds near the Rossdale Plant. After all, it was those burial grounds that eventually led to the Prairie Sky Gondola project getting nixed by council. So tread carefully, my friends.

There are definitely ways of going around it. The route I created I believe does not follow the same location of the burial site, which is east of the Walterdale. I chose the west side of the bridge for this reason.

 

[erudyk_29]

I've always wondered about the odd station spacing between Churchill and Stadium on the Capital Line, seems like a very long way between those two stations. I wonder about a stop here:

Maybe call it Boyle Street or something? I know we were talking earlier on another forum about a potential redevelopment of the industrial land around it. Potentially the LRT station could become a catalyst for development in the area.

Edit: I know about the ghost station at Law Courts, I think that's a bit too close to Churchill though, and might be much more difficult and expensive since it's a retrofit of an old station underground instead of just plopping a new one at grade. Maybe a relocation of the temporary NAIT platform?

 

[Gronk!]

I always thought it was a good idea for an LRT station at 95 St, although people here have referred it as the Little Italy LRT Station. It's a no-brainer to add this new station at 95 St since it's crawling at a snail's pace until it speeds up NE of 95 St.

 

[Avenuer]

This! I've always thought about adding another station here as well and even wrote to Councillor Stevenson about it a year or two ago. Logistically, it would not be too difficult to relocate the temporary NAIT platform to that location, but the tracks would need to be realigned as it's a centre-loading design. I have no idea how much it would cost, but I imagine it wouldn't be as much as the $44 million Stadium Station rebuild as this station would be a much smaller and simpler scale.

 

[EdwardEdm]

This! I've always thought about adding another station here as well and even wrote to Councillor Stevenson about it a year or two ago. Logistically, it would not be too difficult to relocate the temporary NAIT platform to that location, but the tracks would need to be realigned as it's a centre-loading design. I have no idea how much it would cost, but I imagine it wouldn't be as much as the $44 million Stadium Station rebuild as this station would be a much smaller and simpler scale.

The NAIT platform is not portable. The structures are. And relocating the track would be a massive project.

 

[BrettB]

Couldn't they just build the station on the outside of the tracks instead of centre-loading?

 

[erudyk_29]

although people here have referred it as the Little Italy LRT Station

I wish there was a way to do a poll here. Bc tbh I don't know which name I like better:

Boyle Street or Little Italy

I feel like if the Quarter stop had been called Chinatown I would definitely prefer Little Italy for conceptual symmetry but as is, idk

 

[JuliallThat]

I wish there was a way to do a poll here. Bc tbh I don't know which name I like better:

Boyle Street or Little Italy

I feel like if the Quarter stop had been called Chinatown I would definitely prefer Little Italy for conceptual symmetry but as is, idk

I'll throw in a third option for "95 Street/Little Italy Station".

 

[dunno]

I wish there was a way to do a poll here. Bc tbh I don't know which name I like better:

Boyle Street or Little Italy

I feel like if the Quarter stop had been called Chinatown I would definitely prefer Little Italy for conceptual symmetry but as is, idk

Just call it Boyle-McCauley, as it hovers on the border between the two communities and that hyphenated name is already in use in the community.

 

[Gronk!]

Just call it Boyle-McCauley, as it hovers on the border between the two communities and that hyphenated name is already in use in the community.

Although I dig "Boyle-McCauley LRT Station", it's not really a good name at the moment due to the perceptions of homeless camps, druggies and gangstas trying to knife each other. Mind you these perceptions can change down the road. Meanwhile, Little Italy is a tourism destination that is just a couple of blocks away hence why I prefer it for the time being.