January, 2010

24
Jan

2010

Aerial Technologies, Lesson 2: MDG

Teleférico do Alemão in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2011). At 3.5km, with 6 stations, it is one of the world's largest CPT systems. Image by Flickr User minplanpac.

Monocable Detachable Gondolas (MDG) are likely the most common CPT system you’ll encounter as their low cost has made them an attractive addition to public transit systems in the developing world. Systems like the Medellin MetroCable, Telecabine de Constantine and Caracas Metrocable all use MDG technology.

Characterized by a detachable grip which allows for intermediary stations and corner turning, MDG’s utilize a single cable (hence, monocable) for both propulsion and support. This means that the cable that pulls the vehicles is also the cable that supports the vehicle.

MDG Stats:

  • Maximum Speed: 22 km/hr.
  • Maximum Capacity: 3,000 persons per hour per direction.
  • Vehicle Capacity: 4 – 15 persons.
  • Cost: $5 – 20 million (US) / kilometre.

MDG’s suffer from a relatively low capacity (though still comparable to many urban tram routes) and given their single cable are prone to stoppages due to winds in excess of 50 km/hr. MDGs are therefore most useful in calm wind environments with low capacity needs.

As the investment is quite low compared to other technologies, MDGs are excellent “starter” systems for cities intrigued by the technology but question its effectiveness. A short, low-capacity feeder line, for example, would be a fine place for cities to experiment with MDG technology.

The Medellin MetroCable is one of the world's most successful Cable Propelled Transit systems. It utilizes MDG technology.

Proceed to Technologies Module, 3: BDG.

Return to Technologies Module, 1: Introduction

Creative Commons images by Big C Harvey and Felimartinez.

Gondola / MDG / Technology
0
Comments
23
Jan

2010

The Snore Heard Round The World

A Picture of A Sleeping Toronto Transit Commission Worker has Ignited a Firestorm of Controversy.

Last week, a young man snapped a photo of a sleeping Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) worker. Given the age that we live in, the man uploaded the image to his Twitter account and the image went viral almost immediately.

No wonder . . .

The TTC is in a shambles. Fares are continually increased while the level of service is in a seemingly perpetual free-fall. The worst part of the whole matter is that the system’s administration holds ridership in contempt, not itself. Speaking to the Toronto Star, Transit Union President Bob Kinnear had the audacity to publicly shame not the worker in question, but the man who took the photo saying “it is very discouraging that the picture taker and, apparently, other customers, made no attempt to determine if there was anything wrong with this TTC employee . . . The reports that passengers were laughing at him as they passed by the booth makes this even more disturbing.”

People are fed up, plain and simple and instances like this only feed the palpable anger that seethes through the Toronto transit system.

This is why fully automated transit systems are the only way to go. With the transit technologies we have today (whether it be cable or whatever), we simply don’t need ticket takers and drivers wasting the public’s time and money . . . and apparently the worker in the photo above couldn’t agree more.

Uncategorized
2
Comments
22
Jan

2010

The Vinpearl Land Gondola

The Vinpearl Land Gondola in Vietnam

One of the difficulties and beauties of cable research is keeping up with all the unique systems that pop up in the most seemingly unlikely of places. One such system is the Vinpearl Land Gondola in Vietnam.

The system connects the Vinpearl Land Resort on Hon Tre Island with the Vietnamese mainland. The sea-crossing is accomplished with eleven towers that remind one of the Eiffel Tower. The towers are at a height such that all ships may pass underneath the system and the towers and line are illuminated by laser systems at night to increase safety. It is the longest sea-crossing cable system in the world.

The system reportedly meets all international safety standards, took 1 year to build and opened in 2007. According to company literature, the system’s towers are anchored to the seabed some 40 meters below sea level and are designed to withstand seaswells, windstorms and eathquakes.

What is shocking about this system, however, is it’s cost: At a total length of 3.3 kilometres and a cost of US $6 million, the Vinpearl Land has a per kilometre cost of $1.8 million! There are some caveats to this price, however:

  1. The Vinpearl Land uses Monocable Gondola Technology which is the cheapest of aerial CPT systems. It travels at a slow speed of between 16.5 – 22.0 km/hr (still faster than Toronto streetcars) depending on conditions.
  2. The Vinpearl can operate safely in 60 km/hr winds. That is due to the Monocable technology. In harsher environments a more hardy (and therefore expensive) technology would be necessary.
  3. The Vinpearl Land only offers capacity of 1,500 per hour. Company literature doesn’t distinguish between persons per hour per direction (pphpd) or simply persons per hour. I suspect the latter, but I can find no confirmation of this. Nevertheless, the addition of added capacity to a cable system adds only marginal cost.
  4. Sometimes cable manufacturers divorce the cost of their system (that is the terminals, drive shafts, vehicles and cables) from the cost of their infrastructure (in the case of the Vinpearl that would mean towers and stations). I can find absolutely no data on whether or not this is the case with the Vinpearl. I suspect that it is. Knowing what I know about cable, $1.8 million/km is about the lowest price one will find. Even still, at a base price of $1.8 million/km the additional cost of towers and stations would be negligible compared to our existing transit technologies and methods.

Notwithstanding these concerns, the Vinpearl holds drastic implications for our urban environments. Consider crossing the Burrard Inlet in Vancouver; the San Francisco Bay or Puget Sound in Seattle. What does this mean for billion dollar tunnels, bridges and ferries?

Seattle's Puget Sound

Again, it’s all a question of extrapolation, innovation and imagination. It’s a question of asking what does the Vinpearl Land mean for my city?

Creative Commons Images by halam68 and joiseyshowaa

Gondola / Urban Planning & Design / Vinpearl Land
0
Comments
21
Jan

2010

More Media . . .


Justin Skinner writes about The Gondola Project at Inside Toronto. Click on the image to read the article. Image by Steven Dale.

Inside Toronto is a local community newspaper in my hometown of Toronto, Canada. Justin Skinner interviewed me and wrote a piece on the topic. Read the column: Can cable save Toronto transit?

Timon Singh writes about The Gondola Project at US Infrastructure Magazine. Click on the image to read the article.

Meanwhile over at US Infrastructure Magazine, Timon Singh writes about The Gondola Project in his piece Is the future cable-propelled? I apologize in advance for my hopeless, incoherent rambling in that piece . . . I had just flow into Toronto and was going on about an hour sleep.

No excuse, I know, but at least it’s a reason.

Creative Commons image by Squiggle.

Media & Blogs
0
Comments
20
Jan

2010

Survey Says . . .

It took me a while, but I’ve finally compiled all the comments left online to the Toronto Star article that appeared last month. Here, in a completely unscientific study, I present the results.

Most of the comments left could be categorized in one of four ways:

  1. This is the worst idea I have ever heard of in my life.
  2. This is a good idea that is worthy of further investigation.
  3. Whether it is a good idea or a bad one, the real problem is with our current transit planning regime.
  4. Steven Dale is a complete idiot who should learn to shut his mouth.

Here are the percentages of comments that fell within those categories:

  1. (36.73%)  This is the worst idea I have ever heard of in my life.
  2. (33.67%)  This is a good idea that is worthy of further investigation.
  3. (22.45%)  Whether it is a good idea or a bad one is irrelevant. The real problem is our current transit planning regime.
  4. (7.14%)  Steven Dale is a complete idiot who should learn to shut his mouth.

In order to dig a little deeper, however, I also compiled the percentage of people within the “thumbs-up-thumbs-down” crowd who agreed with the consensus in each category. Those results are rather striking:

  1. 71.62% of people within the thumbs-up-thumbs-down crowd agreed that cable transit is a good idea that is worthy of further investigation.
  2. 68.60% of people within the thumbs-up-thumbs-down crowd agreed that whether cable transit is a good idea or a bad one is irrelevant. The real problem is our current transit planning regime.
  3. 51.92% of people within the thumbs-up-thumbs-down crowd agreed that cable transit is the worst idea they had ever heard of in their life.
  4. 41.48% of people within the thumbs-up-thumbs-down crowd agreed that Steven is a complete idiot who should learn to shut his mouth.

I’ve gotta’ say, considering the knee-jerk, reactionary nature of online comments . . . those aren’t bad numbers no matter how completely unscientific they are.

Analysis / Just For Fun / Research Issues / Thoughts / Urban Planning & Design
0
Comments
19
Jan

2010

Open Source Transit

In the past, your technology was successful if you designed something, marketed it, sold it and people bought it. People used your technology the way you told them to use it and that was that.

Then along came things like the internet, Google, the iPhone, WordPress and Web 2.0 and all that changed. Instead of trying to control their technologies, companies started enabling the public to participate in the development and creation of new technologies and their various off-shoots. This change occurred very recently and the majority of manufacturers, technologies and engineers are still stuck in the ‘old way’ of doing things.

Subways, streetcars and buses are like those old software and computer programs we grew up with: There is only one way to use them and it’s the way the manufacturer dictates. Take two seconds and try and think of as many different configurations of our traditional transit technologies as you can. I bet you can’t think of more than three.

Cable on the other hand, is not like those traditional transit technologies. Cable is flexible. Cable allows the creator the freedom to imagine a whole world of transit possibilities grounded in a few simple rules. Understand those rules (the Source Code of Cable), and you can do virtually anything.

Anyone familiar with computer programming or has just a fleeting understanding of the new web, has encountered this concept before. It’s called Open Source and is a philosophy of production that promotes access to the end product’s source materials. Doing so, turns users into creators.

Cable is Open Source Transit. Cable provides the Source Code while others imagine the possibilities that Code presents.

Learn about it, remix it, dream it, build it. It’s just that simple.

Analysis / Thoughts / Urban Planning & Design
2
Comments
18
Jan

2010

Kolelinia

Kolelinia Aerial Cable Support System for Bicycles

I was recently sent a link to the fascinating Kolelinia aerial cable support system for bicycles. While not cable propelled, per se, it clearly uses cables and is well worth exploring.

Created by architect Martin Angelov, the Kolelinia allows cyclists to travel in mid-air above the line of traffic. Cyclists follow narrow u-shaped furrows supported by two aerial cables. cyclists are then attached to a third safety cable via harness and carabiner.

There are several questions I have about the concept (interestingly, they’re not so very different than questions I’ve had to answer about CPT): Does the safety wire prevent the bicycle from falling, or just the cyclist? How do cyclists pass one another? What about snow and ice build-up in the furrow? I can’t seem to find the answers to these questions, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t out there.

The Kolelinia reminds me of a past proposal by Chris Hardwicke called velo-city:

velo-city

Hardwicke’s concept was certainly intriguing and garnered a massive amount of attention, but like similar concepts before it, velo-city suffered from one major flaw: Economics. The cost to build such corridors (not to mention maintain and operate) were such that the concept never took off.

Could the Kolelinia solve velo-city’s economic problem? Possibly, but who knows. Increased cycling is going to be one of several major changes our urban centres will see in the future and the more people think about it the better. So here’s what I’d like to see:

Lock velo-city’s Hardwicke and Kolelinia’s Angelov in a room for a weekend and see what they come up with. Do that, and we just might find ourselves with a high-capacity, low-cost bike lane in the sky.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Analysis / Bicycles / Oddities / Urban Planning & Design
2
Comments