[CANCELED] Summer St. Gondola

Status
Not open for further replies.
^^Yup, if we had decent bike infra, you could take thousands of people off the buses
 
DominusNovus said:
Tell me more about this creature.
Click to expand...

Certainly. In advanced enlightened societies, where the bicycle is prioritized and privileged as a mass transit urban tool, they build things like dedicated, elevated bike lanes--protected tracks, really. Instead of (in the ultimate insult) slapping a line of paint down on a preexisting auto road and pretending as if that's a way to safely foster biking transit/culture.

Thus emboldened, these creatures, in said societies, far from being marginalized/shunned/mocked/made elusive, actually teem on said protected bike tracks in great numbers during morning and evening commutes (and presumably all other times).

Versus here. Where, understandably, bicyclists are continuously incentivized to bike recklessly due to a complete, utter, and shameful (disgraceful?) lack of aforesaid biking infrastructure/amenities.

(Perhaps with the exception of what just got built on Commercial St. in the North End?)

It's an oft-told tale... surely you've heard some variant on it many many times before?
 
I agree. The car is still king in virtually all major US cities, Boston among them. It's sacrilege to sacrifice a traffic lane or on-street parking for a separated bike lane.
 
Genuine question because I am curious and possibly ignorant: What’s the climate like in most of such cities that you describe? I don’t like biking here as a form of transit because of the weather (mostly) for about 1/3 to 1/2 the year.

DBM said:
Certainly. In advanced enlightened societies, where the bicycle is prioritized and privileged as a mass transit urban tool, they build things like dedicated, elevated bike lanes--protected tracks, really. Instead of (in the ultimate insult) slapping a line of paint down on a preexisting auto road and pretending as if that's a way to safely foster biking transit/culture.

Thus emboldened, these creatures, in said societies, far from being marginalized/shunned/mocked/made elusive, actually teem on said protected bike tracks in great numbers during morning and evening commutes (and presumably all other times).

Versus here. Where, understandably, bicyclists are continuously incentivized to bike recklessly due to a complete, utter, and shameful (disgraceful?) lack of aforesaid biking infrastructure/amenities.

(Perhaps with the exception of what just got built on Commercial St. in the North End?)

It's an oft-told tale... surely you've heard some variant on it many many times before?
Click to expand...
 
jl326 said:
Genuine question because I am curious and possibly ignorant: What’s the climate like in most of such cities that you describe? I don’t like biking here as a form of transit because of the weather (mostly) for about 1/3 to 1/2 the year.
Click to expand...

Copenhagen:
Snow
36°30°

Boston:
PM Rain/Snow/Wind
38°33°

Looks similar to me.

Nørrebrogade Afternoon - Cycling in Winter in Copenhagen by Mikael Colville-Andersen, on Flickr

Copenhagen February Traffic - Cycling in Winter in Copenhagen by Mikael Colville-Andersen, on Flickr

Surely you're aware that tons of people walk in Boston throughout the year right?

The only difference is with biking, you get to your heated/cooled destination faster than walking.
 
jass said:
Copenhagen:
Snow
36°30°

Boston:
PM Rain/Snow/Wind
38°33°

Looks similar to me.

Nørrebrogade Afternoon - Cycling in Winter in Copenhagen by Mikael Colville-Andersen, on Flickr

Copenhagen February Traffic - Cycling in Winter in Copenhagen by Mikael Colville-Andersen, on Flickr

Surely you're aware that tons of people walk in Boston throughout the year right?

The only difference is with biking, you get to your heated/cooled destination faster than walking.
Click to expand...

To be fair the average snowfall in Copenhagen is minimal. Snow is rare, and when it happens it is usually less than an inch of coverage, gone in a day or so. (Hence the novelty of a photo of cycling in snow -- rare occurrence.)

But it is still not ideal cycling weather, it rains about 170 days per year.
 
At 4,000 users per hour in peak flow direction, that's 66 users per minute. At three feet of ground space per user, the queue minimum at South Station, for example, would be 70 yards long, and likely much longer.
_________________
Re: gondola use at ski resorts, responses to queries about when the lifts close because of high winds, the reports are anecdotal and no agreed-upon or definitive number for wind speeds. Crosswinds are more of a problem than tailwinds or headwinds, and headwinds are more of a problem than tailwinds.

Gondolas are shut down before other lifts, e.g., chair lifts.

The cost to ride a gondola to the top of Mammoth is currently $29, ride takes between 10-15 minutes. How much is the Boston gondola going to charge?
______________________

For the gondola enthusiasts, why not extend the gondola along the Greenway to near North Station?
 
Why would the line be that long?

With regard to Mammoth's gondola-ride pricing, remember that that's at a ski area, which has a ton of other expenses besides running lifts: snowmaking, grooming, ski patrol, insurance, etc. And Mammoth's weekday all-day ticket price is $149, $159 on weekends and holidays, which is ludicrously exorbitant by East Coast standards, where it's usually $80-90. Cannon in NH charges $18 round-trip for their aerial tramway in the summer. Most urban gondolas are priced similarly to the rest of the local transit system, if not fully fare-integrated with it.

I did once plot out how one could build a gondola system along the Greenway. Think it involved 4 or so stations. Again, not sure how much sense it actually makes, though it might take some commuter-rail commuters off the Orange and Green Lines and make it easier to transfer from the Downeaster to the rest of Amtrak.
 
ceo said:
Why would the line be that long?
Click to expand...
Because one needs maximum efficiency... every gondola must be full. If gondolas depart at half capacity, that diminishes the ability of the gondola system to transport the 4,000 users per hour.

Its a long, single line because, in effect, there's only a single turnstyle leading to a single boarding spot. The gondolas are constantly moving, and users can't all jump in at once; they (all ten) have nine seconds to board a single gondola.

I didn't generate the 4,000 users per hour capacity, the proponents did. And their argument is that the 4,000 per hour capacity is superior to an alternative with an augmented number of buses running on increased frequency, but would carry fewer people.

The gondola system becomes hugely inefficient at non-peak times, while fixed costs remain high because the gondolas are on a constant loop, whether filled, half-filled, or empty. Traditional transit systems would reduce frequency to reduce costs when demand is low.
 
Is it really all that much more inefficient to run empty gondolas? Sure, you’re not making as mich in farea, but you just cycle the gondolas through, its not like you have much in labor costs.
 
I continue to not actually be a proponent of it, but I will poke holes in weak arguments:

The fixed cost of operating a gondola is basically nothing in comparison with a bus. It really doesn't matter if there's a ton of extra capacity off-peak, it's costing you very little to provide that capacity.

It's a single electric motor in the couple hundred horsepower range, as compared with multiple diesel buses which are inherently more expensive to run, have far more moving parts for wear and tear, etc.

Lift attendants require little special training and can literally be staffed with minimum wage stoners (they are at most ski resorts), which compares very favorably with bus operator costs.
 
millerm277 said:
Lift attendants require little special training and can literally be staffed with minimum wage stoners (they are at most ski resorts), which compares very favorably with bus operator costs.
Click to expand...

Good safety record too. Like you said, the people operating these things on the mountains are part-timers getting $14 an hour and spending their off time boarding and smoking.

You dont need to pay train engineer wages.
 
jass said:
Good safety record too. Like you said, the people operating these things on the mountains are part-timers getting $14 an hour and spending their off time boarding and smoking.

You dont need to pay train engineer wages.
Click to expand...

We probably will, though.
 
The East London gondola system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Air_Line_(cable_car)

According to CNN, "This [the annual operating cost] is massively greater than the revenue from fares income." The cheapest fare per trip would be $2.35 per trip. A one-ride cash fare (basically the fare for tourists) is $6.25.

i assume that the capital cost of the Summer St gondola would not be recovered by fares; that the system is a free good, paid for by MP out of a sense of civic-minded generosity.

And then there is the matter of insurance.... you have a conveyance that is boarded and exited while the conveyance is moving, albeit very slowly. But there is a premium on speed, 10 passengers boarding in nine seconds. Many of whom will not be as nimble and quick as skiers on the slopes. To me, this system, at a 4,000 users per hour rate, looks like a potential bonanza for the Massachusetts tort bar.
_______________
With respect to operating costs, a gondola with a 200 horsepower electric motor operating 15 hours a day at an electricity cost of 21 cents per kilowatt hour (Dec 2017 household rate for Boston) is 3000 kilowatt hours at 21 cents per kilowatt hour. X 60 gondolas in daily use. Perhaps, I have erroneously assumed one of the variables, but if I haven't, well, you can finish the math.
 
Quick and nimble is not how I’d describe someone trying to get on any form of transportation while lugging skis around/wearing skis.
 
DominusNovus said:
Quick and nimble is not how I’d describe someone trying to get on any form of transportation while lugging skis around/wearing skis.
Click to expand...

Agree. An able-bodied person in ski boots is not exactly nimble. The typical work-a-day commuter will be much more spry. The occasional heavily laden or otherwise slower than average person may be as slow as a typical skier. Obviously crutches, walkers, and wheelchairs are outliers, but also are quite rare on public transit.

Still this is stupid, but not because people can't get on the gondola fast enough. I agree the queue will necessarily be long to reach peak ridership, adding considerably to total trip time.
 
fattony said:
Agree. An able-bodied person in ski boots is not exactly nimble. The typical work-a-day commuter will be much more spry. The occasional heavily laden or otherwise slower than average person may be as slow as a typical skier. Obviously crutches, walkers, and wheelchairs are outliers, but also are quite rare on public transit.
Click to expand...

Add to that that skiers and boarders in their boots still have to place their skis and boards in the slots in the side of the gondola and remove them at the other end which results in a short mini queue on both ends. In short, skiers and boarders are not a comparable example to commuters. Commuters boarding and disembarking a subway is more comparable.

As for the accessibility needs, the gondola can be stopped and started easily in those circumstances without causing residual delays like you see on the T.
 
stellarfun said:
With respect to operating costs, a gondola with a 200 horsepower electric motor operating 15 hours a day at an electricity cost of 21 cents per kilowatt hour (Dec 2017 household rate for Boston) is 3000 kilowatt hours at 21 cents per kilowatt hour. X 60 gondolas in daily use. Perhaps, I have erroneously assumed one of the variables, but if I haven't, well, you can finish the math.
Click to expand...

The x 60 above is incorrect. There's one big motor for the whole thing that rotates the cable and typically some smaller ones in the stations to accelerate / decelerate the cars on / off the cable (with energy recovery this can be minimal net consumption). With no net elevation change, all that's being overcome in normal operation is the friction of the steel cable against the steel wheels of the towers / stations and the round-trip efficiency of decelerating / accelerating the cars at the stations). The cars have no independent motor. These sorts of things are really quite energy efficient, the electricity cost is going to be a pretty small contributor to overall operating / maintenance costs. The math above works out to $630 / day for the electricity which seems plausible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top