[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.

.....




http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2011/05/02/si-cgy-medellin-gondola220.jpg http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2011/05/02/si-cgy-medellin2-220.jpg

[suburb]

Thanks for the new thread. From what I've gathered not only about the local discussions but from reading up on actual implementations elsewhere, I think this is a fantastic idea for the FMC / ACH loop in NW Calgary. Here are a few thoughts:

- Relatively quick implementation
- Relatively low per km construction cost
- Relatively low per passenger operating cost
- Able to best managed built-up areas where ROW issues are currently limiting factors
- Very low wait times
- Service to a couple of the major under-serviced hubs in the city
- Urban gondolas are proven technologies in other cities
- Cool factor

Sure there will be many little things to work out, but the above list is pretty impressive!

[M II A II R II K]

And if done perhaps others will follow.

[Calgarian]

I think they should definitely try this, no reason it can't work.

[CorporateWhore]

It worked for Ogdenville and North Haverbrook!

[Bigtime]

It worked for Ogdenville and North Haverbrook!

It put them on the map!

Seriously I think this is a pretty neat idea, and like I said in another thread we know that this technology works very well in our cold climate.

[kw5150]

as long as there is a way to incorporate skiing to work, Im all for it.....:)

[DizzyEdge]

Looks like Bell has a new topic to pound to death :)

[sim]

I'm not sold on this at the moment. Without going into too much detail:

The given examples where these systems are already used all have something in one way or another that I would say doesn't exist in Calgary's case.

At least a few of the examples quoted are aerial trams and not gondolas. Aerial trams have two "vehicles," so to speak. As such, we've already got a different system. Furthermore, they tend to be used to cross a water body or other disruptive geographical feature that subsequently make them the fastest/most efficient way to get from one point or another. This despite the longer waiting time for the said vehicles.

The gondolas, and the system it appears Calgary would pursue, used in a couple South American cities and Algeria also have a similarity that isn't apparent in Calgary's case. Dense, non-grided cities in where the system travels up a relatively steep slope where ROWs for any ground-level system were essentially impossible and/or the steep slope destoyed any chance of any normal light/heavy rail working.

Furthermore, many of the cities in where these work also have low car ownership, and they definitely don't provide the parking spaces that these activity centers [in Calgary] currently do. Income and subsequent car ownership plays a large role in travel times willing to be accepted and yet another transfer is only going to add to that. Without any land-use change I don't forsee commuters flocking to this. I really have to question the claim that there are no other measures that can currently be taken to increase busing capacity... How about a transit only lane, better signal prioritization or some other traffic or mobility management schemes? There is a pretty long list.

The cool factor will also quickly wear off on commuters, perhaps especially during the really windy-blizzardy-cold days. Those aren't a good time on the gondola on the ski hill so I doubt a commuter would think they were too. Quite exposed indeed.

Lastly, why build it horseshoe? It seems like a rather large amount of excess infrastructure to provide a system that essentially goes to the same destination twice from two different origins that have relatively little resistance between themselves. As in, why loop it right back to the C-train when there will be absolutely no one riding it from one C-train/Gondola station to the other, but only to get to the mid or one of the mid-stations.

Perhaps if the thing went from whatever station they have in mind in the NW (Banff Trail? - I'd prefer Brentwood) toward these activity centers (Foothills, Children's etc) and kept going right on over the Bow and up the valley to the new Westbrook station - hell to MRU. At least then you've got a whole new system and connecting a few main nodes and two LRT lines. Now it's starting to mirror its south american counterparts a tad (the geographical feature) and it might just have relieved a bunch of congestion on that bitch of a problem Crowchild. What is that - 8/9 km? So 80- 100 million dollars. Just a quick thought in any case.

All in all, I'm no where near sold but it is good that CT is thinking a little outside the box. I do think they might have more pressing things to concentrate on and/or are overlooking a lot of easier and cheaper solutions.

[sim]

So, always read the Construction Updates thread first.... I see Wooster and I are on similar thought planes...

I say we continue the discussion here though.

[Innersoul1]

It worked for Ogdenville and North Haverbrook!

WELL PLAYED! :yes::tup::haha:

[suburb]

Here is a PDF comparing four urban tram and three urban gondola implementations:
http://wcfgoldmine.com/gondolacomp.pdf

Here is a discussion on one of the Toronto forums:
http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?12643-Gondolas-as-Urban-Transit

[MichaelS]

5 operators at all times, minimum. Specialty training required etc. 5 operators at all times is a ton of bus capacity. A crazy amount. Cheaper and quicker only compared to some sort of rail service. Plus I doubt local residents would be very happy about constantly moving public transport with sight lines into their back yards.

It is more expensive than bus service because it provides much more service than would otherwise be provided, and that costs money. If you were going to provide that service if you didn't build the gondola system that would be different. But we don't. And I doubt we ever would.

Comparing something to an ultimate implementation of a automated people mover will likely show gondolas is cheaper, but we would never build a people mover so the comparison is pointless.



Zero local emissions.



I doubt five buses are continually prowling around serving the local destinations on this route (Lions--> Foothills--> Childrens'--> University Main Campus --> Brentwood) that could be removed if a service such as proposed exist. It is only cheaper it you are replacing something.

I think you are over-complicating the operation of these. Most ski hills operate them without great difficulty or expense, I don't think these would be much different, and therefore not a huge cost. Probably easier to operate a gondola than to drive a large bus through traffic.

Also, there will be very little residential that this will be travelling over, maybe a bit in the community of University Heights but that is it (based on the route they are proposing). It is very similar to route 91 already:
http://www.calgarytransit.com/route_maps/rte091.html

Based on the schedule for route 91, we are already operating 3-4 buses an hour on this route, slightly more during the peak times:
http://tripplanning2.calgarytransit.com/hiwire

I think once the up front capital cost is taken care of, this gondola line will operate for the same amount, if not less, yet be far more effective and move a much larger amount of people.

[MalcolmTucker]

It takes 40 minutes to do a round trip on the 91, and there are 3 buses on the scheduel (as far as I can ascertain). By far the biggest operating cost of any service is labour.

Here is the LRT cost breakdown from 2006, with numbers extrapolated out for another purpose we can ignore for this purpose.

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/7434/picture36ka3.png

Replacing 3 operators with 6 (need at least one spare to allow the others to take breaks) will raise labour costs. On top of that, they are not a variable cost that can go up and down with service levels throughout the day, they are a fixed cost. Every hour we want to service this we will need 6 people. After 6 pm until after midnight when the service goes to two buses, the differential would be even greater. Will also need three full shifts of operators, plus whatever extra for weekends, unless you want to only run from 6 am - 10 pm.

I am not saying this isn't a good idea, I am just saying that calling something cheaper as the main selling point when it likely won't be isn't the way to go.

So for a service with 19 hour service 7 days a week you are talking 22 FTE, assuming you have no additional cleaning staff needed, and people still take vacations, sick days, etc, and you can actually deploy people optimally.

At 1875 hours a year, given 2006 wages and benefits, that is $1,942,050 in operator wages alone. Using just service hours of 34,675 a year 2006 wages and benefits comes out to $1,632,499.

If you were willing to run lets say 3 of the gondola stations without attendants you can start talking about saving money, but I don't think you are going to get large public benefits from the project without that.

The main beneficiaries are Alberta Health Services Staff, students/faculty that are colocated between the different campus of the University, and AHS parking services (in being able to avoid further capital investment). Those groups should pay for that benefit. AHS/at the time Calgary regional Health Authority paid for the new interchange for the new surgical wing/emergency department and the Childrens' Hospital. No reason to reverse that precendent now.

There is a big if however. If modeling shows that such a system would cost similar to the 16th Ave, 29th St interchange (and I believe it is on the city's to do list), and delay the need for such an interchange for lets say 30 years, it could be justified off the wider public purse.

[fusili]

Well, I am going to be on Alberta Primetime tonight talking about the Gondola Proposal. So keep the discussion going, it gives me a lot more talking points!!! I'll post the air time when I know later.

[Calgarian]

Good luck Fusili. I'm curious what most Calgarians would think of something like this.

[s211]

Isn't it too windy in Calgary for this to work reliably? I tire of the number of times that Sunshine's gondolas or lifts have slowed to a crawl due to the winds. I think they slow down automatically, in that regard.

[Cage]

Hey folks,

Just want to point out that min crew per Gondolla station is 3, not 1. Additionally there would have to be an additional 2-3 people per line to handle shift breaks. This assumes all stations are loading and unloading passengers.

So for 5 station Gondolla line, 18-20 people are required at all times just to handle the basic operations and people movement. This does not include specialized ticket checkers and line up monitors. Nor does this include Maintenance personnel.

So lets say we are looking at 5 station line with 12 hour operating time. With these assumptions expect a minimum complement of 120-140 individuals.

[suburb]

Hey folks,

Just want to point out that min crew per Gondolla station is 3, not 1. Additionally there would have to be an additional 2-3 people per line to handle shift breaks. This assumes all stations are loading and unloading passengers.

So for 5 station Gondolla line, 18-20 people are required at all times just to handle the basic operations and people movement. This does not include specialized ticket checkers and line up monitors. Nor does this include Maintenance personnel.

So lets say we are looking at 5 station line with 12 hour operating time. With these assumptions expect a minimum complement of 120-140 individuals.

You need to compare apples to apples. A single bus that runs from 5am till 2am requires more than one personal also. During regular operations, you'd likely require one or two attendants at each stop. You don't need new specialized ticket checkers IMHO. Additionally, the attendants would likely be 50%-70% the cost of a regular bus driver.

I do not believe this line will have five stations. I believe it will be one at each end, plus one at FMC and one at ACH. Additionally, I don't actually see why it would need to be a loop at all. I think a single bi-directional line (such as at ski hills) from one of the LRT stations to the two principal destinations would be sufficient.

For a three station line (two destination stops plus one LRT stop) I'd say you'd need in total six people max for regular operations, perhaps less. Those six people would cost the same as four regular drivers.

Regarding size of gondola / tram, I'd suggest a true gondola size, though a small tram would be alright if there were savings to be had. A smallish size (say 8 passenger) would allow for a shorter interval between rides and easier management at the stations (perhaps making it easier for fewer staff).

[MalcolmTucker]

Those six people would cost the same as four regular drivers.


I'm sure the union would have something to say about that...

[Big Sky]

Interesting. Just curious where you got these numbers from? I'm not arguing against them, just curious. It sounds like you've had experience with these things.

Hey folks,

Just want to point out that min crew per Gondolla station is 3, not 1. Additionally there would have to be an additional 2-3 people per line to handle shift breaks. This assumes all stations are loading and unloading passengers.

So for 5 station Gondolla line, 18-20 people are required at all times just to handle the basic operations and people movement. This does not include specialized ticket checkers and line up monitors. Nor does this include Maintenance personnel.

So lets say we are looking at 5 station line with 12 hour operating time. With these assumptions expect a minimum complement of 120-140 individuals.

[suburb]

I'm sure the union would have something to say about that...

It already costs less for a driver of a smaller bus relative to the regular buses. A person holding a gondola steady is different from the driver of a 60 passenger bus. That is a reality.

[Bassic Lab]

You need to compare apples to apples. A single bus that runs from 5am till 2am requires more than one personal also. During regular operations, you'd likely require one or two attendants at each stop. You don't need new specialized ticket checkers IMHO. Additionally, the attendants would likely be 50%-70% the cost of a regular bus driver.

I do not believe this line will have five stations. I believe it will be one at each end, plus one at FMC and one at ACH. Additionally, I don't actually see why it would need to be a loop at all. I think a single bi-directional line (such as at ski hills) from one of the LRT stations to the two principal destinations would be sufficient.

For a three station line (two destination stops plus one LRT stop) I'd say you'd need in total six people max for regular operations, perhaps less. Those six people would cost the same as four regular drivers.

Regarding size of gondola / tram, I'd suggest a true gondola size, though a small tram would be alright if there were savings to be had. A smallish size (say 8 passenger) would allow for a shorter interval between rides and easier management at the stations (perhaps making it easier for fewer staff).

That seems pretty optimistic on staffing requirements and different than what is being proposed. Even if the scope of the project was reduced to what you're proposing, eliminating the University entirely, staffing requirements would be greater than you think. There is no way we can run a service seven days a week ~20 hours a day with such minimal staffing. It would likely require four employees total for every employee working at a given time. I would imagine at any given time there would need to be an attendant at every station and an operator overlooking the entire line. even with three stations, that would be at least sixteen new employees. I sincerely doubt that Calgary Transit could get away with paying them half the wages of a bus driver. These won't be young Australians willing to trade lousy pay for a few months of free rent and skiing.

The major issue that I can see with the proposal is the incredibly narrow band of success vis a vis ridership. Cost and capacity would be relatively stable forever. No matter what the ridership was, staffing needs would be the same for a set time of operation. The areas services, ie hospitals, are essentially 24 hours a day, seven day a week activity nodes. Peak service would be pointless since there would be no peak. I would imagine that low ridership would render the entire project an expensive waste while high ridership would strain the entire thing. If we could be somewhat assured that ridership would sit inside of the band of success for a relatively long period, say upwards of 20 years, then it might make sense as a stop gap measure until capital funding could be found for something better. If not, then it is rather pointless. Either way we would need a study to determine the answer.

[fusili]

The best (and perhaps only) place I could see an urban gondola work in Calgary is between Westbrook Mall and Foothills Hospital. That is a 2.5 km hike over terrain that buses or rail would have a terrible time crossing and would only need two stations.

[Riise]

It's interesting that both my hometown and new home are both seriously considering adding gondolas to their public transport system. Unfortunately, I'm not a supporter of either implementation. My preliminary conclusion is that a tram would be a better option. Trams have proven themselves as excellent intra-neighbourhood rapid transit systems that can complement an inter-neighbourhood system. In addition, they provide more opportunities for development and redevelopment to occur along the transit line.

[sim]

The best (and perhaps only) place I could see an urban gondola work in Calgary is between Westbrook Mall and Foothills Hospital. That is a 2.5 km hike over terrain that buses or rail would have a terrible time crossing and would only need two stations.


Fully agree, as in my post earlier.

I think this idea sounds really nice and cool, however it seems like CT is trying too hard to look innovative and ahead of the game when in fact there are many other things to be concentrating on. Bike lanes, transit lanes, dynamic [road] signage, the core Ctrain network...

But I would still rather see this than another ring road...

[fusili]

You will be able to see me and Bryce Tupper, a engineer from Norr who specializes in Urban Gondolas on Access tonight between 7:00 and 8:00. I don't know the exact time yet. All in all it was a fun discussion.

[suburb]

... different than what is being proposed. Even if the scope of the project was reduced to what you're proposing, eliminating the University entirely ...

I don't disagree with all of what you said in your post, but I wanted to highlight that ACH *is on the university's west campus* and that FMC *is on the university's health sciences campus*. While it may still make sense to add a stop is in middle of the university's main campus (perhaps drop you into the skylight on mac hall) even without that we would not be eliminating the university.

Regarding the discussion about the additional stop in the centre of the university campus, it should be noted that this additional stop would not really reduce the number of cars, whereas the stops at ACH and FMC would most definitely.

My preliminary conclusion is that a tram would be a better option. Trams have proven themselves as excellent intra-neighbourhood rapid transit systems that can complement an inter-neighbourhood system. In addition, they provide more opportunities for development and redevelopment to occur along the transit line.

You're correct with what trams are able to do, however, in this case the issue is FMC and ACH not being serviced well - and people don't necessarily want extra stops along the way to smell the roses. That being said, I'll toss you a carrot ... this could be nicely incorporated into the redevelopment of hotel village, and for that TOD would be a huge boon ;)

[MichaelS]

Do medical staff have to move back and forth between Foothills and ACH very often? I am just asking, as I have no idea if they do or if they just stay in one hospital all day. If they do move, this would be a pretty easy way to do it.

[M II A II R II K]

Another talking point could be additional people using them to go on rides and not just transit.

[MalcolmTucker]

Do medical staff have to move back and forth between Foothills and ACH very often? I am just asking, as I have no idea if they do or if they just stay in one hospital all day. If they do move, this would be a pretty easy way to do it.
I would guess not too much now, but certainly it would change the way resources are shared between the hospitals slowly overtime. I'd imagine depending on volumes that it might encourage a centralized lab be built to free up floor space in the hospitals themselves (but that might fall on the wayside due to climate control issues).

In my observations while in hospital there is very little movement even between wards for most staff except for some selected specialist doctors (like anethetists for example). Likely the first big people movements would happen if one hospital had a much better cafeteria, coffee shop, or the like. (or I guess to North Hill Mall's food court). Another change over time would be specialists that have in hospital clinics moving their clinics off the main hospital grounds if the system was reliable and fast enough.

[fusili]

Do medical staff have to move back and forth between Foothills and ACH very often? I am just asking, as I have no idea if they do or if they just stay in one hospital all day. If they do move, this would be a pretty easy way to do it.

Some would. More importantly lots of faculty and staff move between the UofC and the Hospitals during the day. Several doctors may need to go to Main Campus to do a lecture a few times a week and students in programs like the Bachelor of Health Sciences would move between the campuses. But I would have to agree with Malcolm Tucker in that the UofC and Alberta Health Services would be the primary beneficiaries of any transit system there and should contribute some.

[Riise]

You're correct with what trams are able to do, however, in this case the issue is FMC and ACH not being serviced well - and people don't necessarily want extra stops along the way to smell the roses.

Well this is where the tram trumps the gondola, it can support both routes that stop to smell the roses and routes that blow the pedals off of their stems as the trams whiz by.

[suburb]

Well this is where the tram trumps the gondola, it can support both routes that stop to smell the roses and routes that blow the pedals off of their stems as the trams whiz by.

Alright then, find and buy me a ROW that won't eat in to the traffic flow.

Regarding the other question about staff going between ACH and Foothills, there is but not that much. There used to be a ton more - when hundreds of overflow cars from Foothills used to park on University lands off of the ACH. At that time there were buses going back and forth all day.

The other comments about students and staff / faculty are accurate. There are people, including programs such as nursing, biomedical engineering, etc., that require folks to go back and forth. Don't know the numbers though.

Of ACH and FMC, it is FMC that particularly needs better service. If it was just one destination, it would be FMC.

The new hospital building (McCaig Tower) is very nice on the inside!

[Bigtime]

Fusili should be up any moment on Alberta Primetime discussing the Gondola idea, it's on Access.

[Bigtime]

Mrs. Bigtime has a crush on Fusili.

[monocle]

http://www.albertaprimetime.com/Stories.aspx?pd=2298
Cross post!

[fusili]

Mrs. Bigtime has a crush on Fusili.

I look down too much. Oh well, it was fun. I got to see where Barb Higgins sat.

[Cage]

Interesting. Just curious where you got these numbers from? I'm not arguing against them, just curious. It sounds like you've had experience with these things.

7 years working as a ski instructor in Edmonton.

Family history has both parents on Board of Directors for a ski hill and sister with 10+ years experience including 6 years at Sunshine. Cousin worked at Sunshine in lift operations.

During this time I have spent a lot of time hanging around ski lift operations personnel. The numbers quoted above are applicable to Sunshine's new gondola.

To get to a minimum crew of three:
- One operator for the switches.
- One person to load pax.
- One person to off load pax.
At peak times more crew is required for loading and off loading assistance.

Also needs to have one maintenance perosn on shift at all times. However this maintenance person can be responsible for multiple lifts.

[Mazrim]

I look down too much. Oh well, it was fun. I got to see where Barb Higgins sat.

Both of you did, which was pretty funny. You both looked like you were afraid to look at the camera for any length of time haha. It's pretty strange feeling though so I don't blame you.

[fusili]

Both of you did, which was pretty funny. You both looked like you were afraid to look at the camera for any length of time haha. It's pretty strange feeling though so I don't blame you.

Ha ha. I was a little confused about looking at the camera, because all I had to go on was an earpiece to hear the host, so I looked off into space as I was trying to hear him often. I did another interview previously where I was told not to look at the camera, so I guess it is done differently depending on the set up.

[Bigtime]

I've only done a couple of TV interviews, but they have always been with the interviewer with me, so I was directed to look at them when talking and answering questions. Much easier than that setup I imagine.

[Calgarian]

Well done Fusili, glad to see forumers in the media.

[Riise]

Alright then, find and buy me a ROW that won't eat in to the traffic flow.

Hopefully when CT does their "due diligence" they will look at all of the options and I won't have to.

However, in regards to eating into the traffic flow, sometimes compromises must be made. The flexibility a tram would provide could very well justify a small reduction in road capacity.


I look down too much. Oh well, it was fun. I got to see where Barb Higgins sat.

I thought you were confident and well spoken. The other guy was well nervous and sounded like a hockey player with all of his "Ummms" and "Ahhhhhs". He is pretty much what I'd expect myself to sound like.

[Mazrim]

The other guy was well nervous and sounded like a hockey player with all of his "Ummms" and "Ahhhhhs". He is pretty much what I'd expect myself to sound like.

As long as he doesn't say "you know" every 5 words like Theo Fleury, I can deal with it.

[M II A II R II K]

Another thing is how to get up to the pods and in a fully accessible fashion....

The stations would have to be up highrises and use those highrises to get there. Maybe that's a niche to fill, and to emphasize it as a supplementary service in addition to the already existing backbones of the system.

[Bigtime]

Why would the stations need to be in highrises? They can be easily made to accommodate ground level stations, just a matter of having the guide-way lower down as it approaches the station, no different than at a ski resort (or even the skychair at the Stampede grounds).

[You Need A Thneed]

The only way I can see this making sense is if it has a river crossing. Otherwise, it would seem to be more effective to use a different technology.

Westbrook - Foothills Hospital - Children's Hospital - West Campus - University Station.

A river crossing makes very little difference to the cost of a gondola, it makes lots of difference to the cost of a bus or rail based system.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

The only way I can see this making sense is if it has a river crossing. Otherwise, it would seem to be more effective to use a different technology.

Westbrook - Foothills Hospital - Children's Hospital - West Campus - University Station.

A river crossing makes very little difference to the cost of a gondola, it makes lots of difference to the cost of a bus or rail based system.

while we're at westbrook, why not keep going to mount royal?

[M II A II R II K]

Valleys that already have highways at the bottom would make good candidates as well.

[You Need A Thneed]

while we're at westbrook, why not keep going to mount royal?

I think you would need something higher capacity for that. A gondola doesn't strike me as having a super large capacity.

[fusili]

I think you would need something higher capacity for that. A gondola doesn't strike me as having a super large capacity.

Or speed. I would put the Gondola between Westbrook and Foothills and stop it there. Another transit system (BRT? Light Rail?) woud connect within the Foothills/UofC/ACH complex. A BRT could also go from Westbrook to MRU and on to Rockyview Hospital and then to Heritage. Calgary Transit has this already in their BRT plan. Connecting Westbrook to Foothills via a Gondola helps complete the circle. It is the only place IMO that the Gondola works.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

I think you would need something higher capacity for that. A gondola doesn't strike me as having a super large capacity.

4,100 people per hour isn't high enough at a speed of 7.5m per second?

[suburb]

Hopefully when CT does their "due diligence" they will look at all of the options and I won't have to.

However, in regards to eating into the traffic flow, sometimes compromises must be made. The flexibility a tram would provide could very well justify a small reduction in road capacity.

The context is, the road network around that area is already in the sqeeze. It isn't like there is land like around stoney trail or what have you. 16th is the trans canada highway (or supposed highway)! crowchild has many issues in that area. And all things considered, I think the timeline will play a big part of all this. I can't imagine a proper tram / LRT solution for FMC in the next two decades. Within that context, a gondola doesn't preclude the possibility of LRT or other solutions.

[suburb]

I think you would need something higher capacity for that. A gondola doesn't strike me as having a super large capacity.

Capacity is there (up to 6,000 per hour) however speed is not. Gondolas are good for up to 2-3 km or so to get one way to your destination.

[M II A II R II K]

Aside from being used to cross difficult stretches it can also be used as a supplementary service to take the pressure off, and maybe additional passengers for rides and stuff.

[fusili]

Aside from being used to cross difficult stretches it can also be used as a supplementary service to take the pressure off, and maybe additional passengers for rides and stuff.

This is why it makes sense to go from Westbrook to Foothills. There is a geographic constraint (the escarpment on the south bank of the bow) and the speed might actually be faster than going 29th/Memorial/Crowchild/Bow Trail, especially in traffic. The gondola would be 6 minutes from Westbrook to Foothills, while the drive would be have to be an average of about 50km/hour to accomplish that, which, depending on traffic, could be hard.

[MalcolmTucker]

4,100 people per hour isn't high enough at a speed of 7.5m per second?
7.5 (meters per second) = 27 kph

according to google, so pretty close to most other grade seperated transit systems. Every intermediate station you need to pass through on your trip would really eat into that however.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Capacity is there (up to 6,000 per hour) however speed is not. Gondolas are good for up to 2-3 km or so to get one way to your destination.

mrc is 3km from westbrook, straight down 37th st.

[halifaxboyns]

We are having a discussion on Urban Gondola's next week at Fort Calgary if anyone is interested in attending.
The event information is located here (http://www.albertaplanners.com/index.php?op=events&sub_op=events) (February 15, 2012 event).