The Gondola Project2010
A while back I wrote a post soliciting people to contribute their own Cable Propelled Transit conceptual ideas. Aside from some uptake from the good people over at neoHouston, there was little interest. No wonder: I never offered my own conceptual. Kinda’ hypocritical, huh?
So, without further ado . . . Here’s how I’d use cable in my fine hometown of Toronto, Canada. To readers not from Toronto, please just play along:
2010
The good folks over at US Infrastructure have invited me to blog for them on occasion. So, of course, the first blog has to do with the Caracas Metrocable and how various people (including The Economist) choose to portray the costs of civil works projects.
Please check out Cost Is Relative With Urban Infrastructure.
2010
The Von Roll Company of Switzerland's nameplate. Image by vonrollskyway1.
2010
The Caracas Metro System. Image by User:Okty. Not affiliated with, released by or approved by Metro de Caracas.
The above map is the Caracas Metro System. Metro de Caracas, of course, is one of the few transit systems in the world to utilize a Cable Propelled Transit (they call it the Metrocable) system.
Look closely at the map and you’ll see all the other CPT lines Metro de Caracas has planned. All eight of them. (Nine, if you include the extension of the currently-operational San Augustin line).
2010
According to a recent poll by the World Wildlife Fund, many “Canadians would rather give up junk food, coffee, television and, some of them, sex rather than park their cars.”
Read the whole Toronto Star article.
I’m not sure Public Transit is willing to accept this. They’re too busy denying that people actually like cars. To get people out of their cars, you have to offer a better alternative. Once Public Transit finally admits people like their cars (instead of shaming them for it), they can finally move on to the task of providing something better.
It doesn’t have to be cable. It just has to be something.
2010
Over at Human Transit, Jarrett Walker has an excellent post called Transit and the Hierarchy of Needs. In it, he explores Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs and its relationship to public transit.
His argument boils down to this: People will only care about high-order transit concerns such as urban design and technology choice once their lower-order concern of getting from Point A to Point B is sufficiently met. Regarding issues of urban design and transit-oriented development, Jarrett says this:
(Transit planners) shouldn’t expect these considerations to be very convincing to a citizen who’s stranded on a rainy streetcorner (sic), or in a stopped transit vehicle, because the city designed its transit to catalyse great urban life instead of to be fast and reliable. That person will see other people’s high-level needs being place (sic) above their low-level needs.
Jarrett presents a well-thought out and beguiling argument. He reaches his apex when he says:
. . . people are in a hurry and they have every right to be. If we can implement our great visions in ways that work with their lives, they’ll appreciate it. But when we hear that transit should be slower because it’s good for us, or that a transit line will be so sexy that we shouldn’t care if it’s reliable, be careful. If our visions get in the way of their lives, they’ll eventually rebel.
What we’ve seen in Medellin thus far epitomizes Jarrett’s idea of implementing great transit visions in ways that work with people’s lives. The Metrocable satisfied the most basic of needs in Medellin; moving people quickly, cheaply and reliably.
But it also contributed to so many other facets of the community: Decreased crime; increased civic pride; increased pedestrian space; higher quality urban design; decreased traffic; and increased economic opportunity.
Effectively servicing Medellin’s lower-order transit needs had dramatic impacts on higher-order needs down the line. But those higher-order needs came after basic needs were met.
I tend to bristle when people assume cable transit to be some niche-expensive-frill-novelty-dream-technology because it’s not.
Cable’s really pretty basic, which is why – I suspect – it’s received so much recent usage in the developing world. These are people meeting their very basic transit needs using an ancient (literally) technology that’s been updated to the present day. Colombia, Venezuela, Algeria and others wouldn’t be using this technology if it wasn’t practical, cost-effective, fast, safe and reliable.
That it accomplishes so much more is nothing more than a bonus.
2010
The Table Mountain Cableway, one of only 3 rotating Aerial Trams in the world. Image by geoftheref.
The Table Mountain Cableway in Cape Town, South Africa is an Aerial Tram with a twist (sorry): It slowly rotates 360° during its ascent and descent. It’s one of only 3 systems in the world that does this; the other two being the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway in California and the Titlis Rotair in central Switzerland.
So what does a rotating Aerial Tram accomplish on a larger scale? Not much. It does exactly the same thing as other Aerial Trams plus it rotates. The feature is Pure Novelty, nothing more. Pure Novelty is great for tourist installations. I’d probably argue that the more Pure Novelty that exists in a tourist installation, the better.
Yet in an urban installation Pure Novelty is a waste of time and resources. People want to get from Point A to Point B as efficiently as possible and probably don’t care about things like spinning trams. Practical Novelties, however, present a whole other opportunity to add value to a rider’s experience.
Practical Novelties are those things that genuinely improve a product’s usability but are not directly related to its function:
Standard transit technologies have almost completely ignored how Practical Novelties can improve riders’ experience. The cost-effectiveness and ease of customization that cable presents, however, means Practical Novelties can and should become a standard feature of the industry’s offerings.
