View Single Post
  #9  
Old Posted May 3, 2011, 9:28 PM
sim sim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
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.

Last edited by sim; May 4, 2011 at 9:18 PM. Reason: Added "aerial" to avoid confusion with street trams
Reply With Quote