Time for Aerial Ground Transportation

In 1976 we held a team meeting of our city transportation and public works staff to discuss the difficult problem of moving people from downtown around Lake Monona to Madison's east side. The Atwood Avenue bypass was completed and now we were working on a new belt-line.

During the meeting I suggested that we build a tram that would depart from Law Park where we now have the entrance to Monona Terrace and send it across Lake Monona. Jim Mclary, our key transit planner at the time, sent this yesterday:

Is It time for Toronto to finally get cable: Urban planner says cable cars, at street level or up in the air, can solve transportation woes

Cable cars a feature in cities around the globe

Steven Dale lays out the case for cable on a blog called gondolaproject.com. Among the examples of cable-based transit systems outlined there are:

• The recently approved BART Oakland Airport Connector in California, a $500 million (U.S.) people mover that will run on a 5-kilometre elevated right of way. The project has aroused the ire of some taxpayers, who argued in favour of a $105 million rapid bus transit alternative.

• The Metrocable in Medellin, Colombia, incorporates three aerial cable lines into the transit system of that country's second largest city. The cables were designed to serve low-income commuters in the outlying areas.

• Two cable systems in Caracas, Venezuela, are expected to carry 140,000 people daily when they're both complete in 2011.

• A four-kilometre cable car with seven stations in Perugia, Italy, offers wait times of about a minute between vehicles.

• Constantine Telepherique in Algeria is a series of aerial cable cars, some designed for transit and others for tourism.

Could the solution to Toronto's transit woes be hanging by a thread?

It might sound crazy, but one urban planner believes cable cars rather than streetcars are the answer to TTC hassles. And at least one politician believes planner-designer Steven Dale's idea merits further exploration.

The native Torontonian, who divides his time between Cabbagetown and Switzerland, thinks cable would be the better way on some TTC routes, such as the Scarborough RT.

Cable technology, which can be used above street level like a ski lift, or embedded under vehicles as with San Francisco's iconic cable cars, is greener, cheaper and faster than Toronto's streetcars, he argues.

"We've spent so long imagining our transit as what we have right now and there's a whole bunch of other ideas out there," he said. "Light rail, for me, is not the best technology.

"Light rail happens to be stuck between a technology we don't like – buses – and a technology we can't afford – subways."

If Dale is spinning a line, at least one politician is reaching for it.

"It can work in almost any urban fabric," says Glen Murray, the former mayor of Winnipeg, who plans to run as a Liberal in Toronto Centre in the next provincial election.

He is also chief executive of the Canadian Urban Institute in Toronto, which has funded some of Dale's research.

Gondolas, he says, can cross water or 400-series highways without the expense of bridges. They can run less frequently over low-density areas and more often in highly populated districts. They can be beautiful, don't take up much more space than a telephone pole or light standard, require limited land and don't conflict with traffic.

"It is really an interesting, emerging idea that I think has the potential to be the next generation of transit solutions for Canada," Murray said.

Toronto transit is already in the midst of its most costly expansion to date: A $2.4 billion extension of the Spadina subway line into York Region starts construction next year, and ground has been broken on the $950 million Sheppard LRT, the first of a 120-kilometre,

seven-line light rail network that is expected to reach deep into the city's suburbs over the next two decades.

Dale says Ryerson University is considering a planning course that would look at how cable technology could be used in the Toronto region.

He blames a couple of common misconceptions for making cable a tough sell in North American cities.

"There's a general perception such systems are slow, which they're not, especially if you compare them with Toronto's streetcar system," Dale said.

"The streetcars we have are built to go 100 km/h but they average 12 km/h on the street," even on dedicated right-of-way routes such as Spadina Ave., he said.

"The other major issues are questions of capacity. People think (cable) can't carry enough. It can carry up to about 6,000 people per hour per direction," Dale said.

"We have no streetcar line in all of Toronto that goes above 2,000, and when they're talking about the Eglinton LRT line, they're only imagining it having about 5,000."

Cable systems don't have engines or motors on the vehicles. Many recharge off batteries when they're in the station, and some modern versions are equipped with solar panelling, Dale said.

"Because they're so lightweight, it takes a lot less energy to move them forward," he said.

TTC officials are skeptical.

"I don't know how fast cable cars go," said transit spokesman Brad Ross. "The TTC, of course, would never run a streetcar at 100 km/h.

"But it's not speed that makes dedicated rights-of-way (be it streetcar or other mode) so much better. It's reliability – they don't operate in mixed traffic and, therefore, are less likely to be delayed due to conditions beyond our control."

The TTC's new streetcars, he points out, will hold twice as many riders, about 260 each.

And Ross said TTC engineers disagree with Dale's assessment of the cost and efficiency of cable. Cable would be less efficient because of friction-related loss in the traction system and a lack of regenerative braking power, he said.

Cable also would be more expensive to build, maintain and operate, he added.

Dale, however, argues an under-car cable system would cost less than half the estimated $1.4 billion to renovate and convert the Scarborough Rapid Transit system to light rail so it matches up with the TTC's new Transit City network.

The SRT's dedicated right-of-way makes it a good starting place because there's no issue with running the cable through mixed traffic.

And Dale takes issue with the TTC's assertion that snow and ice would be a problem in the Toronto winter. In the 1880s, Chicago had a bottom-supported cable car system that ran efficiently year-round, and there was a lot more snow 120 years ago, he said.

"I would love to see a top-supported system (gondolas) run along the Don Valley or Humber Valley," said Dale.

"There's a system in Asia where one of the stations is located in a skyscraper. The technology is incredibly flexible."

With files from Vanessa Lu

Comments

[hieronymous]

Cable car systems are definitely cool, but they have no few drawbacks.

Probably the greatest is, as the writer points out, that they are mechanically complex and require considerable ongoing maintenance. They are also prone to down time. One jammed cable sheave can put the whole system out of business. Mechanical failure on the Roosevelt Island cable car system in New York City put the tram out of service for weeks. Here's a link to a video of the Roosevelt Island line http://bit.ly/7PpuLK

The systems which I concur we don't like or can't afford are, alas, not so disadvantaged: Buses simply take different routes or subways switch to alternate tracks.

The high-wire cars are also vulnerable to mischief - saboteurs, vandals, daredevils and drunks; idiots who want to make the thing sway, etc. And I suspect they'd scare a lot of people who would refuse to clamber aboard.

And when the system stops with cars full of people dangling high above, recovery of those people and the system is almost always hazardous and difficult - and is guaranteed to provide a helping of egg on the face of the agency that operates the system.

Riding cable cars would be great fun, but monorails on pylons built over hill and dale and highway right-of-way would accomplish much the same result, in terms of transportation, without many of the pitfalls.

[Barry Orton]

Don't forget Bascom Hill!

see: http://www.waxingamerica.com/2006/12/doug_moes_colum.html

[Ty O'Mara]

If you lose a ski, do they stop it for you when you are exiting?

Seriously, though, we need to think outside of the box so we can get ourselves out of the boxes that present challenges for us.

[Molly]

Snowbird Ski Tram (Utah - 10 minutes from my home). 8 minutes to travel from 8100 feet up to 11,000 feet at Hidden Peak. Carries 120 passengers (plus their skis and boards in winter). A very even ride:

At about 3:22 in the video you'll see the other tram passing.... they're huge. And quiet - and well maintained.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WREro9gy3DE

http://www.gottagoitsnows.com/pictures/1117_1081s.jpg

In Madison, they'd probably would from the city's skyline tho - people have to have their unobstructed view of the Capitol....

[R.J.]

How about four-person pods with an engine and four wheels? They could travel in any direction on concrete slabs laid out in a grid pattern throughout the city.

[The Sconz]

"Light rail happens to be stuck between a technology we don't like – buses – and a technology we can't afford – subways."

From the evidence it sounds like we can't afford these things either –– $500 million?

[Rick Murphy]

There are too many fantasies in the pro-cable car article to list here. The Toronto Transit Commission engineers are right to dismiss the idea. Dangling cable cars are fine for ski hills or certain parts of the Alps. Under-car cable systems are fun curiosities, and useful on San Francisco's steep hills. Monorails are fine for theme parks, where their lack of routing flexibility isn't a big problem. But for most applications, each of these modes is far inferior in a number of ways to light rail transit, a thoroughly-modern update of a technology that has proven itself for over 100 years. LRT is working wonderfully in the growing number of cities using it.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Every now and then, some "visionary" comes along who feels the need to reinvent the wheel. E.g., a number of years ago, a system was proposed for Madison using a network of elevated tracks carrying small capacity, automated "pods" that passengers could supposedly program to take them to their destinations. Intriguing at first, but the idea completely fell apart when fully scrutinized.

[Craptacular]

Has anyone ever looked at the Futrex System 21 Monobeam?
http://www.futrexinc.com/

It is an aerial system with the advantages of grade separation, but unlike a "traditional" monorail, allows simultaneous two-way operations. Imagine one of those built down the median of East Wash, looping the long way around the square to State St, up and over Bascom Hill, down Linden towards the UW / VA Hospital Complex, and continuing westward to Middleton. I would argue it would serve campus and downtown better than commuter rail would, although it wouldn't be as good for special events at Camp Randall or the Kohl Center. As stated on their website, they are looking for a partnership to develop the system. As a graduate of UW's Engineering Department, I'd love to see them get involved in something like this.

[Manhattan]

I have never understood why we can't just use the existing rail infrastructure. This would work particularly well between suburbs like Cross Plains, Deforest, McFarland, Oregon, Stoughton, Sun Prairie, Verona, and Waunakee.

Fit out buses of varying sizes with retractable rail trucks.

Pick up passengers by subscription and limited schedule using the rail corridors to downtown. You would have to modify the rail signals to accept radio control from the vans I'm told.

They could drop passengers at the Airport, Alliant Center, Brittingham, East Towne, Law, the Kohl Center, etc. Or they could leave the rails to drop subscription passengers directly at their workplaces.

I do not see why rail transportation must always be assumed to require large special-purpose vehicles. With this scheme, If a freight is blocking the track, a bus can just exit the track and re-enter on the other side of the blockage with a minor delay.

If extra rolling stock is needed, it can drive to some defined entry point on the lines and be put into service immediately. Also deadheading buses can avoid blocking the tracks in the same way. Since these are buses, we can use the existing service expertise.

What this would require, obviously, is a full GPS tracking and scheduling system that would connect with the rail system. It may be prudent to take ownership of the trackage into a quasi-public entity and lease-back access to the railroads.