10 ms·

A gondola ride to the bottom of the Grand Canyon would be like a gondola ride to the top of Everest. These projects are deeply frustrating because all the deve

• sp332 12y ago
  A gondola ride to the top of Everest would be awesome. Right now, 1.4% of the people who try to summit it die. That's ludicrous and totally indefensible. Anyway it's not as wild as it used to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#Everest_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#Everest_economy
  • codyb 12y ago
    A gondola ride to Everest would be awful. A quick ascent to that height would virtually guarantee some pretty awful side effects for most passengers. I certainly wouldn't want to be on it.
    • forrestthewoods 12y ago
      Don't be so pedantic. You know what he meant. That an easy way for people to visit the top of the mountain would be great.
      • nodata 12y ago
        I read somewhere you can do that today with a helicopter.
        • PanMan 12y ago
          No, you can't. There is no helicopter that can reach those heights.
          • nodata 12y ago
            http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0509/whats_new/helicopter_everest.html http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0509/whats_new/h...
    • npongratz 12y ago
      Millions of people ascend to the height of Everest's summit every day, extremely quickly. I imagine that such a purpose-built gondola would, like modern jets, have a pressurized cabin.
      • arethuza 12y ago
        I'd go for a solution inside the mountain - maybe a train (like the Jungfrau - not to the top though) or a funicular then a elevator to take you to the very top (like Les Deux Alpes - though that is a glacier dome rather than a peak).
      • deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      • codyb 12y ago
        Millions of people haven't even summited Everest (much less everyday, can you imagine? It's like Dane Cook's skit about thousands of firefighters). The numbers around 4,000 according to a quick google search. And it's a multi day trip with plenty of acclimatization stops. Not only that but 100s of those 4000 have perished. It's not some trivial walk around the park just because it's not considered one of the hardest summits in the world. As for whether or not the gondola would be a good thing, I guess that'd depend on a lot of feasibility studies and cost analysis (cost to the environment, to the local populations way of life, monetary costs).
        • arcticfox 12y ago
          You clearly didn't catch the crux of his point - millions of people fly in passenger jets every day at Everest's elevation. All you'd need to do is pressurize the gondola, and there'd be no need for acclimatization.
          • codyb 12y ago
            Oh yea, actually, I see now, my mistake.
        • mcguire 12y ago
    • dredmorbius 12y ago
      That's a problem already for passengers on China's Qinghai-Tibet railway line, whose highest station is above 5,000m (16,600 feet). The railroad cars offer enriched oxygen and supplemental oxygen, though they're not pressurized. Edema is a real possibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinghai%E2%80%93Tibet_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinghai%E2%80%93Tibet_Railway Or this travelog: http://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/HIGH-TRAIN-TO-TIBET-World-s-highest-railway-is-2547632.php http://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/HIGH-TRAIN-TO-TIBET-Wor... As the altimeter approaches 17,000 feet, a package of potato chips balloons outward until it ruptures a seam. Sunscreen and hand sanitizer erupt unbidden from bottles. In soft sleeper class, Chinese businessmen sprawl listlessly on their bunks, sucking oxygen from plastic hoses. The bathrooms smell of vomit.
  • gambiting 12y ago
    >> Right now, 1.4% of the people who try to summit it die. That's ludicrous and totally indefensible. The only problem I have with it is that bodies are rarely taken back and therefore contribute to the pollution of the mountain. Other than that....as long as everyone climbing knows that there is a 1.4% chance of dying, it's fine. I imagine there are extreme sports which have a similar if not higher death ratio,and I would never want to be forbidden from doing something I love just because I "can" die. And I imagine climbing to the top of Everest is what makes it special, not just standing on the top.
    • sp332 12y ago
      I'm not saying we should forbid climbing. But offering a way to make the trip without dying would be nice. Also, having a gondola that goes up there would make it easier to remove dead bodies of climbers.
      • bmelton 12y ago
        Putting a set of stairs to the peak appeals to the type of person who wants to be on top of Everest, but not to the type of person who wants to climb Everest. A set of stairs, obviously, ruins the wildness of one of the world's great wildnesses, as well as costs a lot of money for something that would likely go relatively unused. Otherwise, as has been pointed out, you can take a helicopter to the top, but honestly, that may prove over time to be more risky than the slower way.
    • refurb 12y ago
      The only problem I have with it is that bodies are rarely taken back and therefore contribute to the pollution of the mountain. A dead human body is "pollution"? I guess you can counting the clothing and equipment as pollution or trash, but I would call a dead human body quite "natural".
      • gambiting 12y ago
        Well, in an environment where the human body will never decay it's pretty much pollution. Please don't take it wrongly - I don't mean to disrespect those that died there,but it's true that their bodies stay there for years. And how many dead bodies can Mount Everest keep until it looks like a scene from some depiction of hell? 100? 1000? 10000?
  • Fede_V 12y ago
    That's because those people have no business being there. Those mountains are for genuine climbers that can earn their ascent there, not idiots with too much money and no respect for a mountain, who have sherpas basically push them to the top. I hate this ridiculously entitled attitude. If you aren't a great climber in fantastic physical shape, just don't go to Everest. I have the same kind of contempt for people who pay crazy sums of money to go on a Safari in Africa with loads of guides to shoot lions or elephants, so they can show their friends back home the pictures and the carcasses. Actually - in that same vein. Those are the same people that show up to Burning Man spending insane sums of money and completely defeating the spirit of that event. I am not a climber, a hunter, or someone who has ever gone to Burning Man, but if you want to take part in those cultures, you should do so with respect and humility.
    • gnaritas 12y ago
      > That's because those people have no business being there. Says who? Who are you to tell people where they have business being? > Those mountains are for genuine climbers that can earn their ascent there, not idiots with too much money and no respect for a mountain, who have sherpas basically push them to the top. Again, says who? > I hate this ridiculously entitled attitude. Like the one you're showing telling others what they should and shouldn't do?
      • Retra 12y ago
        Where are you going with this? People climb Mt Everest and die. Who says they shouldn't be there? You are free to be a rotten corpse, too, if you like. Good decision-making requires good judgement. If you think judgement is unfair, then go ahead and make dumb decisions. Though the whole point of having a conversation is to find out how to make good decisions, not to defend bad ones in the name of some misplaced 'right to be stupid.' >Says who? Well, I do. If that's not good enough for you, then do something about it instead of pretending like there's some great authority I should be appealing to in the exercise of good reason.
        • gnaritas 12y ago
  • mc32 12y ago
    There are two problems with that. One is that for previous and future traditional ascenders it would "cheapen" the experience. In essence it makes scaling it mundane, so you would have elitists oppose this. The second is that unless you institute a limited lottery system Everest would become littered like mt Fujiyama. So basically nature becomes spoiled by commercial interests. So given those choices, what's the answer?
    • Retric 12y ago
      Everest is already covered in junk and dead bodies. Most of this is hidden by snow, but it's a lot closer to a walking up a snowy trash heap than people want to admit.* A little over 4 thousand people have reached the summet which is about the same number of billionares in the world. So, it feels fairly prestegious even if it's mostly a question of how much your willing to spend to get there. *Mostly becase people use a small set of trails on their assent, and really don't have the enery to bring their trash down with them. The majority of the mountain is untouched, but the trails get a lot of traffic.
    • smm2000 12y ago
      That gandola won't be cheap to build. Better solution is to auction spots or set price high enough that only limited number of people can afford it.
  • unreal37 12y ago
    I don't get the argument here. Climbing Everest is dangerous, yes. Launching a rocket is dangerous. Going to the bottom of the ocean is dangerous. Putting your head inside a alligator's mouth is dangerous. Walking a tightrope across two tall buildings is dangerous. Space travel is dangerous. Sometimes, dangerous things should just be left alone by most people, not made impotent so any average person can do them. Danger is part of life.
    • mcguire 12y ago
      Some dangerous things are worth doing, in spite of being dangerous. Some dangerous things are worth mitigating the danger so more people can do them. Some dangerous things aren't really all that worthwhile. Wisdom is knowing the difference. Or something.
    • greggman 12y ago
      I'm not really following your point. Seeing a doctor used to be dangerous. Traveling to other countries used to be dangerous. So if I follow your logic we should get rid of all planes and travel because things that are dangerous should remain dangerous because reasons? And we should make sure surgery is still dangerous because reasons?
    • willwagner 12y ago
      I totally agree. Things like life jackets for sailors, ropes for climbers, and helmets for motorcyclists have made those sports impotent for the real men/women of this world who scorn safety. If you are not willing to risk it, just stay at home so the rest of us can unflinchingly face danger head on.
      • sliverstorm 12y ago
        A gondola to a mountain climber is hardly the same thing as a helmet to a motorcyclist. More like a city bus to a motorcyclist. Helmets much more readily compare to ice axes, crampons, weather forecasting, ropes, anchors, avalanche beacons, pulleys, radios... and helmets! Mountain climbers are not against safety.
• raldi 12y ago
  > A gondola ride to the bottom of the Grand Canyon would be like a gondola ride to the top of Everest. Yeah! Oh wait, you mean bad. Counterpoint: I once rode a sled down a shiny metal track to get down from the Great Wall of China, instead of walking back down the equivalent of 20 flights of steps. It was great! http://kiplingandclark.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/mutianyu_toboggan_flickr_ianz.jpg http://kiplingandclark.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/mutian... If they'd also had a gondola to ride up in, I would've been able to spend that much more time and energy exploring the top. And imagine the impact it would have on the less able-bodied.
  • pmjordan 12y ago
    Yes, the Great wall of China, that strange natural phenomenon, formed by tectonic forces over millions of years.
    • raldi 12y ago
      Why is that relevant? Would the Grand Canyon be less grand if it was only a couple millennia old?
      • saganus 12y ago
        I think he means the fact that the GW is man-made instead of a natural phenomenon.
        • raldi 12y ago
          Okay, and how is that significant?
          • corin_ 12y ago
            In a conversation about whether or not to add man-made touches to natural beauty... you didn't mention modifying natural beauty, but an already man-made thing.
• Shivetya 12y ago
  likely any new development near the Grand Canyon or similar would be required to have something akin to gondola because of the ADA. While I agree preserving nature is the best reason, guilt over treatment of Indians by past generation has effectively allowed the greediest of them to run all over conversation areas and state laws.
  • jonknee 12y ago
    The National Park is already quite accessible (so much so that I didn't enjoy it whatsoever, but hey).
• danielweber 12y ago
  In high school, every Monday my geology teacher Mr. Weinle would show slides from a national park he visited. One of them -- I don't remember which -- had an asphalt sidewalk running through it. He said "I was mad as hell when I saw this. This is nature! You should protect it!" Then he switched slides to the next picture he took: it showed a man with leg braces walking through the park. He held up his fingers and said "at this point I felt about this tall." These parks don't just exist in a vacuum. They exist so that people can enjoy them. I'm not necessarily endorsing this modification to the Grand Canyon. There is value in preserving it for the future as is, and there is also value in making it accessible. It's a trade-off. Some parks -- and I don't just mean the flat ones, since the amazing geology generally happens where there is significant vertical distance involved -- should be accessible even to those with special needs. Maybe enough are already. Maybe not.
  • unreal37 12y ago
    I see the point you're making. I've been to the Grand Canyon, and it's difficult to get to. Even off the main road, it's 30 slow miles over unpaved dusty, bumpy road to get to the Western rim. If night falls, you're in tough shape because the road is unlit. If you are low on gas, or need a break, there's no place to stop. Even in 2015, the canyon is hard to get to. But to turn it into a mini-Las Vegas would be a crime. You can't turn nature into a tourist trap. There's no way the two can co-exist, and nature would lose. It's difficult to get to, yes. But that's the charm of it.
    • shas3 12y ago
      The 'western rim' is not inside the National Park [1]. The 'legit' Grand Canyon, the one covered by the National Park is very accessible (the rim)! [1] http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/skywalk.htm http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/skywalk.htm
      • anomicron 12y ago
        SkyWalk is a tourist trap, expensive as hell. You are not even allowed cameras on the actual skywalk, so you have to buy their photos. The skywalk itself is an inslut to nature. I hope I knew a way of getting to the Canyon from Las Vegas without having to pay this robbers.
• cgh 12y ago
  We fought a similar gondola project in my town and won. Developers wanted to build a gondola to the top of the Stawamus Chief, a big granite monolith on the edge of town. It got shot down. The fact that it's a provincial park probably helped. The gondola got built in a more suitable location, to the top of a nearby ridge, and now everyone is happy. Hopefully the people organising against this Grand Canyon silliness see similar success.
  • japhyr 12y ago
    Thank you for doing that. I hope to climb the Chief some day, and I'll be happy not to top out in front of a gondola depot.
    • cgh 12y ago
      Well, I'd like to take some real credit, but all I did was sign a petition and mutter darkly. There was a lot of opposition and I guess every name made a difference. As far as climbing the Chief goes, get up here, you aren't getting any younger. A bunch of great new routes have gone up over the last few years, including some stellar moderates: http://squamishclimbingsource.com/sunset-strip/ http://squamishclimbingsource.com/sunset-strip/
• jqm 12y ago
  I personally would love a gondola ride the top of Everest...
• Theodores 12y ago
  I rode by bicycle to the South Rim, put my bike on the roof rack of some tour bus, walked down to the bottom, up the other side and got back on my bicycle again, to keep going up through Utah. I have done a lot more riding in Wales where we have Mt Snowdon, complete with a railway to the top. Furthermore, there is a cafe there, 'blighting' the highest point in Wales (and England). However... The railway is cute because it was old. Aeons ago that was shocking new machinery and there must have been those that feared the wilderness being lost. This new-fangled gondola will also gain pedigree and heritage over time, to garner a worthy history of its own. The tourist tailored top doesn't spoil the mountain for me and I am glad that there is one 'must see' mountain that is accessible to all. The truth is that the 'must see' mountain makes the others second rate when it comes to height. This means they are all relatively devoid of tourists. So consider the gondola going to the deepest part, the prime spot and totally letting the car-bound tourists having it. They won't need to stray too far and it could work wonders for depleting the general area of tourists. Which is good for those that can be bothered to get their without the aid of a motor.
  • amalcon 12y ago
    I was thinking the same thing. Mount Washington sounds very similar. It's the highest peak in the northeastern United States, and part of the famous Appalachian Trail. It also has both an auto road and an old-style mountain climbing railway, with some touristy stuff at the top. Hikers don't seem to mind this very much -- in fact, it's common for even fairly experienced hikers to ascend in the morning and take a bus down later, so that they may spend more time at the summit. There are several somewhat lower (but still spectacular) peaks in the same range, which are largely untouched.