June, 2010

23
Jun

2010

Help

If you like the idea of Urban Gondolas and Cable Propelled Transit in general, here’s a few ways you can help out:
  • If you use RSS readers, subscribe to The Gondola Project’s feed. The link is in the upper right hand corner of the header bar.
  • If you use Stumbleupon, please stumble this site. We highly recommend stumbling this page. Also, add us as a friend on Stumbleupon (look for CUPProjects) and give us the chance to return the favour.
  • If you are active in other urban planning, public transit, or public policy forums and/or websites, think about letting people know about this site.
  • Tell us how we can help you spread the word.
  • Comment profusely on this site.
  • Tell us what you’d like to see more of on The Gondola Project.
  • Tell us what you’d like to see less of.
  • Create your own conceptual cable transit lines and share them with us.
  • Email us at gondola (at) creativeurbanprojects (dot) com and ask to be a guest columnist.
  • If you use Twitter, twitter us. Ditto with Facebook, Digg and all the rest of them (buttons at the bottom of each post).
  • Challenge cable. Help make it better than it already is.
  • If you are a moderator/owner of another urban planning, public transit or public policy forum and/or website, consider adding a link to The Gondola Project.
  • If you are a blogger, blog The Gondola Project.
  • Tell people.

Since going live November of 2009, The Gondola Project’s experienced major growth in readership beyond our own expectations. But to push it beyond what it already is, we need you. We can’t do this alone.

The Gondola Project has never been – and will never be – advertiser supported. Your email addresses will never be shared with anyone and any information you choose to share with The Gondola Project is completely confidential. We promise.

Uncategorized
0
Comments
22
Jun

2010

Why Outliers Are Important

Bent Flyvbjerg is a scholar in Denmark and an expert in cost-overruns and demand-shortfalls in public infrastructure projects. In one of his more recent publications (“Cost Overruns and Demand Shortfalls in Urban Rail and Other Infrastructure”), he demonstrates the dramatic demand shortfalls that most urban rail infrastructure is met with. According to his study, actual ridership was, on average, 50.8% lower than forecasted.

Rightly, Mr. Flyvbjerg excludes two statistical outliers as each “strongly diverge” from the figures. Whereas most other systems studied experienced dramatic demand shortfalls, these two outliers experienced demand that was 158 and 60% greater than forecasted.

Now I’m not asking Mr. Flyvbjerg to include those outliers. It is standard statistical practice to forget about them. I do, however, want to know what happened in those two instances; particularly given that each outlier was in a German city. Don’t you want to know what the Germans are doing right? Don’t you want to know the story behind these two abnormalities? Don’t you want to know what made these cities successful against the overwhelming evidence that suggested they should fail?

Don’t ignore statistical outliers just because they corrupt your models and poison your results. Maybe your model’s wrong. Forget about your model for a second and instead ask yourself why did that happen?

A statistical outlier, whether positive or negative, is something that is unique within your models, and uniqueness is deserving of inquiry. There is a story there. And in that story are answers to important questions.

Predictable results may make for easy answers, but (hopefully) your boss/client/supervisor isn’t looking for easy answers. And if he is, those answers are probably incorrect.

We need more people who don’t really care about easy answers and predictable results. Change occurs when people look for the unpredictable and then wrestle to find the story lurking somewhere underneath.

Thoughts / Urban Planning & Design
0
Comments
21
Jun

2010

Getting Slammed

How does cable deal with high-capacity rushes? Say, after concerts and at sporting events? Or in the peak of rush hour traffic? Well that depends on a few things:

  1. What is the capacity of the system in question? If the system in question needs 4,500 pphpd at peak and you’ve built a 3,000 pphpd then lineups will be long. That applies to any and all transit. If your current needs go over 6,000 pphpd, it’s probably best to consider a different technology. Alternatively, you can build multiple lines (see point 4).
  2. In the case of concerts and sporting events; how close to the stadium/arena is the transit stop? Cities tend not to completely integrate transit stations into arenas and stadiums because no transit system in existence can handle the crush of 60,000 people filing out of a football game and descending on a subway platform. The same is true for restaurants. No 100 seat restaurant can handle 100 people walking in the door at the same time. Instead, the host waits five minutes before seating you so as to allow service to be spread throughout the evening. It’s also the reason you often can’t get a table for 7:00 pm on a Saturday, but can at 7:15. Good transit, like good restaurants, is good at managing the expectations of its riders.
  3. Where is your cable station in relation to your riders’ point of origin?  Ridership on all transit technologies needs to be spread out somewhat and this is often done by locating the transit station 5-15 minutes walking distance from stadium itself. This prevents a system from getting dangerously overwhelmed. LT1M wait times offered by cable, will however, help alleviate some platform overcrowding that naturally occurs with standard transit technologies.
  4. Are you relying upon one transit station or many? Most people arrive at an event from many different directions and depart an event in many different directions. If the location of your event is such that only one station, heading in one direction is possible, you probably need a high-capacity technology like Metros or subways. If, however, the potential exists to have many people moving in many different directions, then the needed capacity can be spread over the network, preventing choke points. Cable’s low cost makes this possible.

The last point is probably the most important, because a real world example exists to demonstrate:

Upon opening the Santo Domingo Metrocable line, Metro Medellin experienced ridership double what was anticipated. I’ve spoken with Metro Medellin and they themselves have said the 3,000 pphpd system they built was not enough and they required a 6,000 pphpd system. Rush hour line-ups to use the system are a daily occurrence.

The problem stems from the fact that the existence of the Santo Domingo line has drawn riders from other nearby parts of the network who used to use the private buses that service nearby barrios. Because the wait time to use the Metrocable plus walking from Santo Domingo is still less than the time it would take to use the privately-run bus systems, the single Metrocable line has become somewhat overwhelmed. This probably should’ve been anticipated originally, but is forgivable given the unique nature of what they were accomplishing.

Had they to do it over again, one of two solutions could’ve been implemented:

Firstly, just use a 6,000 pphpd system – which wasn’t available when the Metrocable was originally designed.

Secondly, install a second, parrallel Metrocable line with a connection 1 station over from the Santo Domingo connection. This will spread ridership over a wider area and increase total system coverage.

Metro Medellin already has plans to implement the second option. Given that the Medellin Metrocables have been installed for a price of USD$12 – 18 per kilometer (all in, including stations), the option is certainly doable. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Design Considerations / Urban Planning & Design
5
Comments
20
Jun

2010

Sunday Morning Statshot

A QUICK LOOK AT SOME OF THE STATISTICS THAT MAKE YOUR CITIES WORK (OR NOT):

Forecasted average weekday boardings for the Jacksonville Skyway Express in 1995: 42,472

Actual average weekday boardings for the Jacksonville Skyway Express in 2003: 1,925

Number of lost passenger items the Toronto Transit Commission typically sells at auction per year: 44,000

Cost of a single Chicago transit fare in 1865: $.05

Cost of a single Chicago transit fare in 1865, inflated to 2009: $0.68

Cost of a single Chicago transit fare in 2009: $2.25

Cost of a single Chicago transit fare in 2009, deflated to 1865: $0.17

Price for a Seattle South Lake Union Trolley “Ride the S.L.U.T.” t-shirt: $15.00

Length of the Toronto Island Airport Ferry crossing, the shortest such crossing in the world: 400 feet

Length of the Park Pobedy Metro Station escalators in Moscow, Russia: 413 feet

Length of the Zürich Polybahn, the world’s shortest publicly-accessible funicular: 577 feet

Number of Zeppelins manufactured prior to World War I: 21

Number of number one singles released by British rock band Led Zeppelin since World War I: 0

Estimated maximum speed of a Toronto CLRV streetcar: 100 km/hr

Average operating speed of a Toronto CLRV streetcar: 10 – 15 km/hr

Number of letter T’s missing from the name of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s SmarTrip® card: 1

Length of the world’s longest bi-articulated buses: 25 meters

Number of passenger compartments within a bi-articulated bus: 3

Number of fully-integrated public transit gondola lines in Medellin, Colombia: 3

Number of buses operated by Medellin, Colombia’s transit agency: 0

Age – in years – of the Wuppertal Schwebebahn, the world’s oldest monorail: 109

Length of the longest tunnel on Earth, the Seikan Tunnel: 53.85 km

Length of Switzerland’s Gotthard Base Tunnel, once completed: 56.978 km

Year construction began on the Gotthard Base Tunnel: 1993

Estimated year of completion: 2017

Date in 2017 when the United States experiences their first visible total solar eclipse since February 26, 1979: August 21st

Time of the eclipse: 16:50 – 20:02 UTC

Number of parking spaces anticipated for usage at the Dubai World Central parking lot, upon opening in 2017: 100,000

Number of parking spaces available at the West Edmonton Mall, currently the Guiness world record holder for the world’s largest parking lot: 20,000

Fastest recorded speed for a train: 581 km/hr

Average cruising speed of a Boeing 747: 910 km/hr

Average operating speed of a Toronto CLRV streetcar: 10 – 15 km/hr

Cheapest day of the week – on average – to fly with a major North American air carrier: Wednesday

Sunday Statshot
0
Comments
19
Jun

2010

A Lego 3S

Sometimes models can explain things in ways words can’t. With that in mind, take a look at this fantastic Lego model of a 3S Gondola system. Is it perfect? Hardly. But pay careful attention to the acceleration and deceleration wheels. Those replicate pretty accurately the way in which detachable gondola systems are accelerated and decelerated upon exiting and entering a station.



Just For Fun
2
Comments
18
Jun

2010

12 Trends That Work To Urban Gondolas’ Advantage

I’m sure there’s plenty more trends that work to Urban Gondolas’ and Cable Transit’s advantage, but these are the first 12 I could think of. Feel free to contribute your own in the comments.
  1. The Rise of The Private Automobile. As the price of cars decrease rapidly due to Chinese and Indian manufacturers, private car ownership is likely to increase dramatically the world over. In turn, street level traffic will become even worse than it already is now. Street level transit solutions like Buses, Streetcars, LRT and BRT will be just as stuck in (and contributing to) this traffic, thereby offering no competitive alternative to the car.
  2. Western Democracies are Broke and Getting Broker. As governments around the world grapple with the conflicting and urgent needs to increase transit infrastructure and tackle crippling budget deficits/debt, lower cost transit solutions become a necessity.
  3. The Rise of Conspicuous and Convenience Consumption. 75 years ago people would accept a streetcar every 15 minutes and adjust their schedules to meet their transit service. But that was well before the world of iPods and “I Want My MTV.” Today, however, people are fixated on their own schedules and needs. Transit that can offer reliable on-demand service or LT1M wait times are at a distinct advantage.
  4. Growth in Telecommuting and Off-Peak Commuting. As more and more people choose to work from home (either part-time or full-time), and micromultinationals become normalized, the need for mass capacity transit into Central Business Districts will become less and less relevant in all but the most important financial centers. The construction of underground Subways and Metros have already ground to a halt in Western Democracies, and these new commuting patterns are likely to hasten this trend. Massive capacity transit will become obsolete.
  5. The Continued Failure of PRT. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) has often been idealized as public transit’s future savior. Yet, despite more than 50 years of attempts, PRT has never been implemented. Could it sometime? Yes, but not in the near future. Cable Propelled Transit (CPT), however, offers many of the attributes of PRT, but is actually on the ground, in operation. Those who’ve been frustrated by PRT’s lack of progress may find themselves gravitating towards CPT.
  6. New-Urbanism and The Rebirth of the Town Square. Despite 60 years of the onslaught of suburbia, suburban communities are beginning to grow denser. The rise of telecommuting, increasing gas prices, and New Urbanist ideals are likely to spur the creation of villages within cities. People will, however, still need to get around those villages and low-cost, medium-capacity circulator systems will likely fill that role.
  7. Master Planned Developments and Incorporated Towns. Multi-billion dollar “Master Planned Developments” and incorporated towns that function more as businesses than as cities are not yet common, but they do have a noticeable presence in North America (check out Las Vegas CityCenter, Celebration Florida and Sandy Springs Georgia). As towns and villages are structured as investment ventures instead of as towns and villages, public transit becomes a selling point to potential customers. But as public transit would be nothing more than a line in a balance sheet, investors are likely to look towards more cost-effective and eye-catching solutions.
  8. Free Public Transit. Is this one a trend? I don’t know, but the movement towards Free Public Transit is catching people’s attention. Should Free Public Transit catch on, transit operators will be under intense budgetary pressure to deliver services in a more cost-efficient manner from both a capital and operations & maintenance perspective.
  9. The Cost of Labour & Union Strength. Bus drivers in New York can’t be outsourced to China.  And since labour is one of the largest budgetary items in any transit operator’s balance sheet and as transit unions ensure that cost continually rises, it’s reasonable to expect moves by transit systems towards automation, and driver attrition via retirement.
  10. The Mainstreaming of Environmental Concerns. Cable is thought to be one of – if not the – most energy efficient public transit systems in existence. Should peer-reviewed research demonstrate this fact categorically, expect to see the environmental movement adopt the technology.
  11. Continued Advances in Cable Technology. In less than 10 years time, cable has doubled its capacity; increased its speed; added numerous amenities; and driven down costs on a per rider basis. There’s no reason to believe these advances won’t continue, making the technology all the more appealing for cities around the globe.
  12. Immigration, The Internet, Globalization and Mass Tourism. Good ideas move quickly nowadays. 800 years ago you needed Marco Polo, two decades and a Caravan of Merchants just to get the idea of pasta from China to Italy. Today, you’d just look it up on Wikipedia and Flickr. Even 20 years ago, cable didn’t have much of a chance, but due to the internet, that’s all changed. Great ideas now spread like wildfire.
Analysis / Urban Planning & Design
5
Comments
17
Jun

2010

The Confusion Behind 3S, MDG and BDG

In yesterday’s post, I alluded to the bizarre nature of term “3S.” Let me explain – and I warn you, this will make your head hurt:

The cable industry differentiates technologies like Monocable Detachable Gondolas (MDG) and Bi-Cable Detachable Gondolas (BDG) based upon the ropes/cables used. Great, you say. That makes sense. Monocables use one cable and Bicables use two. I get that. Problem is, the terms Monocable and Bicables are not used in that way.

For example, this is a Monocable Detachable Gondola:

Image by ** Parapluie **

And this is a Bicable Detachable Gondola:

Image by night86mare.

Still, this seems straightforward enough. In the pictures, Monocables use one cable and Bicables use two. No big deal. Here’s where things get odd though. In the cable industry, Monocable is used to describe a vehicle whereby one cable is used for both support and propulsion. This is why Funitels are often referred to as Double Loop Monocables. Despite appearing to use two different cables, a Funitel only uses one rope and uses it for both support and propulsion.

Despite appearances, Funitels are still classed as Monocable systems. Image by 123_456.

Bicables, on the other hand, are classed according to the principal that systems must have one rope (or set of ropes) for support and a second rope for propulsion. That means the 3S, which is named for having three ropes (two support ropes, one propulsion rope) is actually classed as a BDG system. This is why on websites like Lift-World you won’t actually find 3S systems in their database. You actually have to dig through the BDG database to find them.

Despite clearly using three ropes (and being named for those three ropes) the 3S is still classed as a Bicable system. Image by Derek K. Miller.

In other words, the terms Monocable and Bicable are both a reference to a specific technology and a reference to a group of technologies. Problem is, the references are highly misleading; do not conform to the common logic of counting the number of cables we see; and cause obvious confusion.

As I’ve mentioned before (here and here), cable nomenclature is complex and difficult when first encountering the technology. But the way in which sub-technologies and systems are grouped and classified are positively arcane and borderline ridiculous. This is a problem for the industry because it needlessly complicates already expensive and time-consuming planning research. If I want a Bus or Streetcar or Light Rail or Subway, I don’t have to worry about families, sub-groups and the like. I just ask for a Bus or a Streetcar or a Subway. It’s simple.

Worse still is the common occurrence of researchers and writers using the qualities (or lack thereof) of one cable technology to mistakenly discredit cable as a whole without actually understanding that there are huge differences between cable techs and the bizarre manner in which their organized.

Told you it’d make your head hurt.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
3S / Gondola / Research Issues
1
Comment