Quote:
Originally Posted by suburb
Did you listen to the eye opener interview? They stated it was not only cheaper and quicker to put in, it was also cheaper (than regular buses) to operate as they only require attendants at the loading / unloading points.
Do you have actual data that contradicts the statements made by the people who were being interviewed?
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed
It would also be electric, meaning that it would be zero emissions, like the CTrain. I can't see the fuel/electricity cost being significantly different than buses, the question I would have is, what is the maintenance cost differences?
|
Zero local emissions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelS
Exactly. 5 stations (about) would only require 5 operators. Not one operator per bus or train. Operation costs would probably be substantially lower (assuming power to operate the gondola is equivalent to the cost of fuel to drive a bus).
|
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.
Threaded Mode