Take the Gondola To Work
- First Posted: Mar 11 2010 09:05 AM
- Updated: 3 months
Cable propelled transit could be a solution to Toronto’s transit woes.
Another bottle of booze won’t cure alcoholism any more than an extra credit card will cure indebtedness.
So it is with public transit. For years, Canadian transit systems have seen increasing budgets and rising fares while service has become less and less reliable. This is particularly the case in Toronto.
And yet, as Canadian cities prepare to expand their urban public transit systems, they are opting for buses, subways, and streetcars – the very technologies that got them into trouble in the first place.
Why not try something different? How about something called cable propelled transit?
For those unfamiliar, cable transit is a family of technologies where passive vehicles are pulled by a moving cable. Vehicles can operate on aerial lines, underground, at street level, or on elevated guideways.
If you’re thinking of ski lift gondolas or the San Francisco trolleys, you’re on the right track.
It’s a safe, fast, and environmentally friendly form of transit. What’s more, it’s proven.
Unlike theoretical concepts that have been analyzed to death with little real progress (personal rapid transit, for example), cable propelled transit has a proven track record. Cities around the world have installed cable systems that are fully integrated into their public transit networks with remarkable success. Most are modest, point-to-point systems, but others are multi-stop lines with stations that are underground, at street level, or elevated in the air.
The biggest success story is the MetroCable in Medellin, Colombia. The system has done so well that it has spawned two additional lines in the city. Transfers between the subway and MetroCable are free and the connection between the technologies is smooth. Between 2004 and 2010, the city opened almost 10 km of public transit cable lines, an impressive accomplishment.
North America is finally taking notice. Portland, Oregon recently constructed the Portland Aerial Tram. Yes, the system suffered from a difficult development process, but it is now an integral part of the city’s transit infrastructure. The tram has won numerous architectural awards and ridership is twice what was originally forecasted. New York’s Roosevelt Island Tram, meanwhile, has been fully integrated into that city’s transit grid and is being completely modernized.
Several other major North American cities have, will have, or are investigating cable’s potential for their own public transit systems. That’s a good thing.
It’s good because cable is now competitive with our traditional transit technologies. In many ways, it’s actually superior. Compared to traditional methods, cable is a low-cost, high-value technology.
Cable is fully automated, with vehicles monitored by camera. Stations are attended, but the movement of the system is computer controlled. This reduces delays caused by human error. As cable can offer wait times of less than a minute, transit services can practically guarantee reliability. All this, for a fraction of the price of a streetcar or light rail system, while still providing a similar level of service, capacity, and speed. Cable also happens to provide a fun, pleasant ride; a quality most transit operators tend to mistakenly dismiss. When something’s fun to ride, surely more people will use it.
Sure, it’s odd to say that technology popularized in ski resorts should be used as public transit, but that’s no reason not to consider it. How ridiculous must the idea have seemed 150 years ago when London engineers first proposed putting a locomotive train underground? Now, subways are considered the pinnacle of transit infrastructure! Things change.
It’s easy to dismiss cable because it’s different. But in times such as these, when transit is more hassle than helpful, shouldn’t different be encouraged? Public transit is about moving more people for less – it’s that simple. Cable can do that. It is a cost-effective, reliable, quick, and safe technology. For those reasons, it deserves further attention from our public transit authorities.
You can watch our video interview with Steven Dale here.









Comments
Re:Marks
“ "For years, Canadian transit systems have seen increasing budgets and rising fares while service has become less and less reliable. This is particularly the case in Toronto." Do you have data or non-anecdotal evidence that demonstrates that Toronto public transit has actually become less and less reliable? Or is this an assertion that we believe to be true merely because we believe it to be true?
Mark Knackstedt