Last year, when I had the opportunity to interview Metro Medellin about their Metrocable systems I stuck my foot in my mouth in a way only a North American could.
We spent a couple hours going over the history, the successes and the failures of the system. When discussing the advantages of the gondola transit technology they’d implemented, they listed off all the standards: It was safe, fast, effective technology. They never, however, commented on cost-effectiveness.
I felt the need to chime in and so exclaimed “plus it’s so cheap!”
At which point one of the men I was speaking with cut me off and corrected me. “Cheap to you, maybe,” he said, “but to us, still very expensive.”
Remember: Cheap is relative.
2 Comments
Steven,
Is there a formula for estimating what an indicative cost should be for a simple system of each type of cable technology? MDG, or single cable or whatever. As in a bare bones station at each end, no mid stations, no aircon in cabins, no cost of land, etc, such as (and I am guessing wildly here) US$2 million plus $150,000 per every 100 metres it travels. So if you were trying to convince others of the benefits of building a single bit of cable infrastructure you could chuck the figure into the cost-benefit studies or the pub arguments or whatever.
If there is no such formula, perhaps we can come up with one. A table with passenger capacity and minimum build costs could be quite interesting.
@ Matt,
I’m thinking we need something like that. It would be very useful for cost-estimations.