News   Nov 29, 2024
Feds Match $758 Million Investments for New Line 2 Subway Trains
 422     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
Looking Back on a Year of Construction at Amexon's Central Park
 229     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
33-Storey St Catharines Tower Would Retain Masonic Temple
 550     0 

Don Valley Gondola (Broadview Stn to Evergreen Brick Works)

I used to live at Broadview and Danforth for a number of years and I think the main reason they would want to keep that TDSB site is that the police use it so frequently to set up a speed trap :)
 
Yeah, the east end of the Viaduct and the south end of the Leaside bridge used to be the big speed traps in the area. The Viaduct still us, but for whatever reason TPS doesn't seem to care about speeding on the Leaside bridge anymore.
 
muller877 said:
[...]We are privatizing part of a ravine (the Playter Garden Station) [...]
- Will this impact future OMB hearings for other ravine construction? (e.g. a large house or private patio on the side of a ravine)
- How much will they be paying the city for rent?[...]
Click to expand...

I suspect the City would lease the land, rather than selling it. Given the nature of this project, I don't think it would have any precedent value. In any event, ravine permits are not subject to OMB appeal. As for the rent, the City is obliged to stick to fair market value - the anti-bonusing rules really prevent any outright sweetheart deals.

Good questions you've asked.
 
rbt said:
Did they bring up anything reasonable for objections?
Click to expand...
Most were related to the parking, the toy factor, resistance to change, and Don Valley environment. What Tulse wrote.

I noticed that many objectors were older (age 60+).
At age 41, I was literally one of the 10% youngest in the room.

That said, it's really important to listen, even if you disagree.
 
Last edited:
If we want better access to the Brickworks from south of there then why not extend TTC 28 Bayview South via River Street?
 
muller877 said:
Some questions I have...did they answer these at the meeting?

We are privatizing part of a ravine (the Playter Garden Station).
- What environmental studies will be done?
- Will this impact future OMB hearings for other ravine construction? (e.g. a large house or private patio on the side of a ravine)
- How much will they be paying the city for rent?
- what is the top of the building? Can it be a green roof that is at the same level as Playter Gardens (effectively making Playter Gardens bigger)?
- The building looks pretty big. What else is in this proposed site (other than a ticket window and the gondola)? Will the city restrict the usage?

General questions:
- do they have an agreement with the owner of the property in the Ravine? (City or Brickworks or another party?)
- if it does fail will there be a trust account set up to remove all infrastructure and revert to natural state? (instead of the city paying)
- Does the transit laws allow for a private transit company in Toronto? Does this require a provincial or municipal change in law?
Click to expand...

Some of those questions are answered in the front page story that was just posted:

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/03/information-session-offers-closer-look-don-valley-cable-car

And yes, a reserve fund is planned so that if the project goes bust (which is actually very rare for cable car systems), it can be taken down at no cost to the city. The Playter Gardens pavilion will be cantilevered off the side and will supposedly only include ticketing, no concessions are imagined. Steven Dale (CEO of Bullwheel) stated that because of this positioning, the park itself should remain fully intact. Expect to see some additional images come online in the next week.

The important thing to remember is that this is all very preliminary. Even the City initially didn't know how such a proposal would even begin to be approved, so it's a new process for everybody. We should be seeing a lot more information in the coming months as a working committee is set up to field questions and concerns from the community.
 
The gondolas are quite small.
I would not like to hang my bike outside, with the side bags tilted.
Too much trouble (and for just a single bike?).
Make it bigger so that many bikes can ride inside. If not, don't build it.
 
eltodesukane said:
The gondolas are quite small.
I would not like to hang my bike outside, with the side bags tilted.
Too much trouble (and for just a single bike?).
Make it bigger so that many bikes can ride inside. If not, don't build it.
Click to expand...
A bigger gondola = also bigger stations on difficult geography = costs much more = may not be privately fundable = taxpayer rescue = white elephant.

They say this 100% privately funded gondola is designed to break even at usual rides of only 2 passengers per minute -- they quoted 100 passengers an hour typical goal and 400 passengers per hour peak. So you will typically usually have your own capsule.

Fellow cyclist... TIP... there are some brands of quick-detach rear bike bags, designed to detach in under 5 seconds for boarding a bike onto a bus, car, etc. Sholder strap or top briefcase-style handle, some available at Mountain Equipment Co-Op, etc. Pushbutton snap mechanism. Some of them even folds to create a backpack (some of them even with an inside flap that turns inside out to avoid muddy backpacks), great for carrying stuff away from your bike. It's impressive what bike gear exists nowadays! You know, this could solve your problem too rather than asking the gondola people to double their capital cost.

This is not a ski slope where there will be a lineup. This is designed as a lower traffic, slower running urban gondola with virtually no lineups (except during busy periods).
 
Last edited:
eltodesukane said:
The gondolas are quite small.
I would not like to hang my bike outside, with the side bags tilted.
Too much trouble (and for just a single bike?).
Make it bigger so that many bikes can ride inside. If not, don't build it.
Click to expand...

Lets look at the #1 bike park in the world...Whistler.

Even 6 person gondola's don't permit you to bring bikes inside ... see picture in the article below.
http://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/wh...ola-opens-to-bike-traffic/Content?oid=2667365

The main Whistler gondola use to allow bikes inside (there were no seats...just "leaning areas"). You had to rest the front wheel on a seat which created a muddy mess...not something you want for the non-biker tourists. I'm not sure what they are doing since they upgraded the cabins on the main gondola (8 person).

You are probably one out of maybe 50 people in all of Toronto that will have this problem. Most either will have side packs that can be removed in less than 2 minutes (mine do...I take them off since I worry that they will be stolen). Most will not have side packs at all for a bike ride through the Don Valley (they will have a backpack at the most).

So for a private operator they are quite willing to forgo revenue on the 50 people (max $5,000/yr) to avoid the costly upgrade to larger gondolas (millions). Simple cost/benefit.
 
dowlingm said:
After Bixi I think we all know that any talk of insulating the taxpayer is crap.
Click to expand...
Still... I would fully and totally approve of my own taxpayer money for this, but I know many would not. Many even said TTC should operate it! They advertise this as a recreational attraction rather than transit, partially because of the TTC monopoly. That said, it also has transit advantages as well (e.g. dog walking in Don Valley by Riverdale residents, inexpensively park-and-ride at Brickworks to go to Danforth area, bringing bikes easily out of the valley, etc)

To me the public vs private source is moot as the Capex cost is only 10 dollars per annual ride (20M for 2.5 million passengers per year). Even if it falls short of traffic expectations by 80 percent, it should be able to at least break even according to my independent napkin math.

My research elsewhere shows gondola annual operating expense is typically only six figures for this format of gondola, which really helps convince me. I was encouraged very few modern urban gondolas fail (i.e. going bankrupt), and those that did, were much more white-elephanty types.

This is just a common modern accessible microcapsule with a good track record, similar to Mount Tremblant - they paid only 7 million for theirs fully enclosed capsules albeit with much simpler non-enclosed stations.
 
mdrejhon said:
Still... I would fully and totally approve of my own taxpayer money for this, but I know many would not. Many even said TTC should operate it! They advertise this as a recreational attraction rather than transit, partially because of the TTC monopoly. That said, it also has transit advantages as well (e.g. dog walking in Don Valley by Riverdale residents, inexpensively park-and-ride at Brickworks to go to Danforth area, bringing bikes easily out of the valley, etc)

To me the public vs private source is moot as the Capex cost is only 10 dollars per annual ride (20M for 2.5 million passengers per year). Even if it falls short of traffic expectations by 80 percent, it should be able to at least break even according to my independent napkin math.

My research elsewhere shows gondola annual operating expense is typically only six figures for this format of gondola, which really helps convince me. I was encouraged very few modern urban gondolas fail (i.e. going bankrupt), and those that did, were much more white-elephanty types.

This is just a common modern accessible microcapsule with a good track record, similar to Mount Tremblant - they paid only 7 million for theirs fully enclosed capsules albeit with much simpler non-enclosed stations.
Click to expand...

Thx for all the updates, Jhon. I was going to go to the presentation but didn't because lazy. This was a great round-up, as was the front page article.
 
Skeezix said:
That's what they say at all public meetings. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can get a crowd riled up more than a suggestion at a public meeting that a nearby school board property might be sold. Loss of green space! Loss of public land! Condo towers! More traffic! They learned a long time ago that, unless there are actual plans, their public position has no room for speculation.

I suspect that TDSB has no concrete plans for this land at present.

I am sure they see it as an asset - it has a phenomenal location right on the subway, centrally located, with good DVP access (although the site itself has lousy ingress and egress). I've lived on the Danforth for almost 15 years, and for most of that time barely noticed the site. Only this past summer did I walk around it a bit, and posted some photos on the Urban Toronto thread for the site. Some really interesting architecture, albeit slowly rotting as the TDSB neglects it. But when they say its a long-term asset, they are probably also thinking of land value. If they didn't first have to offer it to other public sector bodies, and could auction it off to developers, it might be surplus already.

At some point, the Province may require TDSB to sell underutilized sites such as this. The final decision might not be the Board's.

ETA: But back to the topic of this thread, I don't think anything is going to happen with this site in the short-term, such that the gondola project might look to it for parking relief. And TDSB isn't going to entertain contractual parking arrangements which could adversely impact/complicate future plans for the lands.
Click to expand...

If there was ever a site that TDSB could develop on its own to make significant dollars, this is it. Are they allowed to do that? Because it would be easy to move the adult classes to another underused school, rebuild the school and add both residential and commercial density, AND revitalize the bike / walking paths. Blue-skying, but they could add a pedestrian bridge/gateway to Danforth and allow for gondola parking as well. Think of a condo like the one at Pottery Road, but linked to Todmorden. Awesome!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top