Cannonball
New member
exactly
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
The Gondola as public transportation
- Thread starter wa-loaf
- Start date
exactly
I hear what your saying but can they be powered by other means(solar, wind etc.). Im just thinking out loud.
Edit... in the near future lincoln financial field in philly is adding wind turbines tothe top of the stadium and will be a self sufficient stadium. Some food for thought.
The tram in Telluiride actually kind of serves a purpose. They run it pretty late too, beats an OUI.
Spent three or four months in Haifa isreal back in the 90's and they had a tram that went to the top of the big hill, not just a touristy thing as I remember, people used it as it was a killer walking uo that.
From what I can see The Taliskier project is an awful idea. I predict in the future the Wassatch is going to be a land rights battle ground, already turning that way. A very this mountain range that gets kick ass snow is gonna be the next holy land between bc skiers, environmentalist and resorts.
Spent three or four months in Haifa isreal back in the 90's and they had a tram that went to the top of the big hill, not just a touristy thing as I remember, people used it as it was a killer walking uo that.
From what I can see The Taliskier project is an awful idea. I predict in the future the Wassatch is going to be a land rights battle ground, already turning that way. A very this mountain range that gets kick ass snow is gonna be the next holy land between bc skiers, environmentalist and resorts.
Cannonball
New member
No doubt, Was actually just asking the question, because I truly don't know what powers most of these systems.
There is often a perception that if you can't physically see the exhaust it's a cleaner solution (i.e. electric vs gas). It isn't always the case.
Without any true knowledge about this, I would guess that there is less of an environmental impact to building gondolas vs trains. Towers and cables seem less destructive than tracks and tunnels. But I have no idea if there is a significant difference in power efficiency or sources. Personally I would rather ride in a gondola...but only because the view is better.
abc
Well-known member
It IS cleaner to those having to share the nearby space of such exhaust. But no necessarily overall environment.
The key to public transport is the PUBLIC part. The better word is actually MASS transit. The "mass" part make it more efficient. So whatever the source of the power, it will use less of it.
Actually yes and no. Above ground construction is cheaper to build than underground. But since it's exposed to the element such as high wind, snow and ice, it's reliability may not be so great. Just count how often your ski gondola are on wind hold.
On the ground is still the cheapest, where there's land.
Subways and trains aren't build because they're cheap or environmentally good. They're typically build for volume, where there's already grid lock, or speed where long distance is involved. Otherwise, buses and street cars are a lot cheaper to build and operate. More flexible too.
Next time please use a larger image, I had trouble making out that it was a chairlift...
snowmonster
New member
^ Was it dmc who was really peeved about large photos?
St. Bear
New member
If most people in apartments aren't allowed to put satellite dishes up, then I have a hard time believing they're going to start stringing cables from the tops of all the buildings.
Telemechanic
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 218
- Points
- 16
Coal burning power plants too just like gondolas, trams and most ski lifts.
Cannonball
New member
I thought it was useful to have a full scale picture to really understand the concept. I printed it out. It currently covers my whole neighborhood and is still printing.
MadPadraic
Active member
Completely off topic, but there is actually a federal regulation prohibiting apartment building owners from preventing tenants from installing satellite dishes on any part of the property to which they have exclusive access (i.e. balconies). It is still a common provision in many leases, but it is illegal.
Hehe whoops
abc
Well-known member
Many builings don't allow it. Period.
Not even owners are allowed to have it on their belcony. Never mind tenants.
Just because they don't allow it doesn't mean they're legally in the right...
abc
Well-known member
I would think if it's illegal, someone would have had challenged it. Owners have a lot more clout than tenants.
The fact it's still in all the building rules of NYC let me to believe there might be exception to the fed reg.
The fact it's still in all the building rules of NYC let me to believe there might be exception to the fed reg.
drjeff
Well-known member
My guess is that if its a PRIVATELY owned building that one is either leasing/renting or buying a unit in, and it's specified in either the lease/renters agreement or the deed to the unit, then if the buildings owner says no dishes, then that's the rule. Not unlike in some deed restricted communities that have stipulations such as what colors a house can be, no flag poles over a certain height, etc. I'm well aware of this as the development my house is in has deed restrictions saying that the exterior siding on the house has to be either wood or stone (no vinyl/aluminum siding) and that the primary color of the house has to be a "traditional colonial color"
So that's what I have to abide bye through 2025 when the terms of the deed restriction expire
MadPadraic
Active member
My guess is that if its a PRIVATELY owned building that one is either leasing/renting or buying a unit in, and it's specified in either the lease/renters agreement or the deed to the unit, then if the buildings owner says no dishes, then that's the rule. Not unlike in some deed restricted communities that have stipulations such as what colors a house can be, no flag poles over a certain height, etc. I'm well aware of this as the development my house is in has deed restrictions saying that the exterior siding on the house has to be either wood or stone (no vinyl/aluminum siding) and that the primary color of the house has to be a "traditional colonial color"
It has been frequently challenged and the tenant always wins. It is still in leases and condo association agreements because most dwellers aren't aware that it isn't binding or don't view the hassle of challenging it as worthwhile. Sort of like when you are at the grocery store and something rings up for 10 cents more than it should. Not worth the effort of fighting...
abc
Well-known member
That could be.
I can see if the tenant wins the court case and the landlord decide not to renew the lease when it expires. The tenant loses big time.
NYC condo/co-ops are organized as businese entities. So they can have any rules as the association sees fit. A lease usually has a rider that it doesn't violate the condo rule. So even if the tenant wins the case against the landlord/owner, the owner will be fined by the condo for the violation. So there's no way the owner/landlord will re-new the lease. (that's not counting the condo can simply refuses access to the installation company too)
Similar threads
