[ChazYEG]

The City could demand bonding from the gondola company to mitigate that risk but that added expense also makes the project less profitable.

I worked on the financing side of the gondola project back in 2021-22. A bond was part of the financing guarantees offered to the city.

Also, the fares would be relatively competitive (at the time, I believe it was $5) and it would be integrated with ETS for a surcharge of $2, if memory doesn't fail me.

The two biggest revenue and trip generators would've been the redevelopment of the power plant and commercial development at the Whyte Ave end of the line. Profitability was there's although their vision was always much more akin to those legacy projects of old, when rich people felt like it was their duty to leave a legacy and give back to society. They were trying to raise most of their capital in the form of equity, not sent, originally.

Later on, they had to change approach and some of these things changed, including the fares, but ETS integration was always a part of the plan.

 

[Out of Towner]

I worked on the financing side of the gondola project back in 2021-22. A bond was part of the financing guarantees offered to the city.

Also, the fares would be relatively competitive (at the time, I believe it was $5) and it would be integrated with ETS for a surcharge of $2, if memory doesn't fail me.

The two biggest revenue and trip generators would've been the redevelopment of the power plant and commercial development at the Whyte Ave end of the line. Profitability was there's although their vision was always much more akin to those legacy projects of old, when rich people felt like it was their duty to leave a legacy and give back to society. They were trying to raise most of their capital in the form of equity, not sent, originally.

Later on, they had to change approach and some of these things changed, including the fares, but ETS integration was always a part of the plan.

I'm not an opponent of public / private partnerships but I'd assume that ETS has some misgivings about the proposed project because the $2 surcharge that ETS would receive from Prairie Gondola isn't really a benefit to ETS. Prairie Gondola's proposal doesn't guarantee an increase in passengers by any meaningful number. A new route could be more convenient for some passengers but it would cannibalize passengers from ETS''s existing routes and potentially lead to a reduction of service on them. Shifting passenger volume from ETS to Prairie Gondola isn't in ETS's best interest that I can see.

 

[thommyjo]

I'm not an opponent of public / private partnerships but I'd assume that ETS has some misgivings about the proposed project because the $2 surcharge that ETS would receive from Prairie Gondola isn't really a benefit to ETS. Prairie Gondola's proposal doesn't guarantee an increase in passengers by any meaningful number. A new route could be more convenient for some passengers but it would cannibalize passengers from ETS''s existing routes and potentially lead to a reduction of service on them. Shifting passenger volume from ETS to Prairie Gondola isn't in ETS's best interest that I can see.

Don’t think it’s zero sum. Could be structured to be a net increase more than a cannibalism of the same existing user base.

 

[Out of Towner]

Don’t think it’s zero sum. Could be structured to be a net increase more than a cannibalism of the same existing user base.

Even if one believes that a gondola will increase passenger volume for some reason, it still doesn't address the issue of a gondola intruding on the view of the Walterdale Bridge. The bridge is a visual masterpiece and it's used by the City to promote tourism around the world. Similarly, the bridge is regularly featured on the preambles to sporting events and it's free advertising for the City. Although, it's hard to quantify the monetary impact the bridge brings the City there is a benefit and why mess with it? Would the City of San Francisco permit a profit seeking company to erect a gondola in front of the Golden Gate Bridge? I don't think so and good on them.

 

[IanO]

It's about far more than that and much of the time you will not even notice wires or cars in the background.

The shot west is much better anyways.

 

[lemongrab]

A gondola doesn't necessarily ruin a cityscape. Most of the coolest ones in London have gondola in foreground or are more from the gondola perspective, which may work in Edmonton, too.

 

[IanO]

Let alone if those cars have indigenous art or lighting.

 

[Out of Towner]

Sure do a gondola. Just don't do it in front the Walterdale Bridge. Maybe do it in front of the Hotel Macdonald? That would look pretty cool too. What do you think?

 

[Wax]

Sure do a gondola. Just don't do it in front the Walterdale Bridge. Maybe do it in front of the Hotel Macdonald? That would look pretty cool too. What do you think?

A big selling point was that it connects rossdale and uses the power plant. If it doesnt do either of those things we wont have a gondola.

 

[thommyjo]

Even if one believes that a gondola will increase passenger volume for some reason, it still doesn't address the issue of a gondola intruding on the view of the Walterdale Bridge. The bridge is a visual masterpiece and it's used by the City to promote tourism around the world. Similarly, the bridge is regularly featured on the preambles to sporting events and it's free advertising for the City. Although, it's hard to quantify the monetary impact the bridge brings the City there is a benefit and why mess with it? Would the City of San Francisco permit a profit seeking company to erect a gondola in front of the Golden Gate Bridge? I don't think so and good on them.

Bad take. Views evolve and new ones are created. A gondola would potentially create even more compelling views of the city both from afar and within the gondola cabins.

 

[yeggator]

Especially if the gondola is neonified

 

[Out of Towner]

Bad take. Views evolve and new ones are created. A gondola would potentially create even more compelling views of the city both from afar and within the gondola cabins.

OK you solved the business case for a gondola by saying that for some reason it will increase the number of public transit passengers. You've subordinated a prime advertising structure for the City and solved that qualm by saying that people will evolve and get over it. So now for one of your bigger solutions. Public safety.

Gondola's aren't infallible and the gondola cabins go over the river, which obviously adds complexity to any passenger rescue operation that could arise. You have to agree that Fire and Rescue can't walk out into the middle of the North Saskatchewan River with hip waders and start rappelling people down from the gondola cabins like they do at ski resorts when a gondola breaks down. The training alone would be expensive and dangerous, so do you have a solution for Fire and Rescue besides "get er done boys."

 

[ChazYEG]

Dude, why are you like this? You NEVER have a positive take on anything that's not car infrastructure.

 

[thefreezebreeze]

OK you solved the business case for a gondola by saying that for some reason it will increase the number of public transit passengers. You've subordinated a prime advertising structure for the City and solved that qualm by saying that people will evolve and get over it. So now for one of your bigger solutions. Public safety.

Gondola's aren't infallible and the gondola cabins go over the river, which obviously adds complexity to any passenger rescue operation that could arise. You have to agree that Fire and Rescue can't walk out into the middle of the North Saskatchewan River with hip waders and start rappelling people down from the gondola cabins like they do at ski resorts when a gondola breaks down. The training alone would be expensive and dangerous, so do you have a solution for Fire and Rescue besides "get er done boys."

Safety and rescue operations wouldn't be what prevents this from being greenlit (there's lot of other gondola systems to learn from, ie london literally pictured above), so your question is honestly irrelevant.

 

[johnnyboy]

OK you solved the business case for a gondola by saying that for some reason it will increase the number of public transit passengers. You've subordinated a prime advertising structure for the City and solved that qualm by saying that people will evolve and get over it. So now for one of your bigger solutions. Public safety.

Gondola's aren't infallible and the gondola cabins go over the river, which obviously adds complexity to any passenger rescue operation that could arise. You have to agree that Fire and Rescue can't walk out into the middle of the North Saskatchewan River with hip waders and start rappelling people down from the gondola cabins like they do at ski resorts when a gondola breaks down. The training alone would be expensive and dangerous, so do you have a solution for Fire and Rescue besides "get er done boys."

The gondola car will be a submersible life raft, equipped with life jackets for the passengers.