A few highlights from around the world of urban gondola transit systems and Cable Propelled Transit:
- Haven’t we heard this story before? A polish PRT engineer says that his system would provide a cheaper alternative to the proposed Simon Fraser University gondola in Vancouver/Burnaby.
- All approvals appear to be in place for the London Thames Cable Car (Gondola) and third party funding is now being sought.
- British charity Friends of the Earth argues that the London Thames Cable Car is at risk from planes using London City Airport. Transport for London says it has taken all safety issues into account.
- A Norwegian boy was injured last week when a gondola cabin was knocked from its cable by a crane at the Lillehammer ski resort. Police are investigating.
- The San Francisco Bay Guardian tells you 5 things you didn’t know about cable cars.
- A woman’s first ride on the Medellin Metrocable provides further evidence that no matter how much you improve people’s lives, you will never – never! – be able to satisfy everyone:
10 Comments
Well,… but the others seemed to have their fun with her in one cabin 😉
@ LX,
Yeah, it’s funny, eh? Even the 3 year old child is barely fazed by the entire thing.
For what it’s worth, the article on the Polish engineer’s “cheaper alternative” to the SFU gondola, http://www.burnabynow.com/Would+single+rider+rail+cars+work+transit/4219169/story.html
is highly misleading, starting with both the headline and the photo caption. In fact, MISTER (or “MR” for short) cabins hold 5 passengers, not one.
As for “haven’t we heard this story before?”-‘crack’, the answer is ‘No’. As with CPT, several PRT incarnations are floating around – most showing ‘supported’ cabins on expensive concrete guideways. MISTER suspends its cabins from a lightweight guideway. When ‘bid-time’ comes, Mr. Mikozsa will be front and center. For those truly interested in comparing the two proposals: http://www.mist-er.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108&Itemid=98
@Dave Brough,
When I ask “haven’t we heard this before?” I’m pointing out that this is such a common tactic of the PRT industry, one can recite it by heart; PRT loves to proclaim itself faster, better and cheaper and capable of doing everything for everyone.
And yet there’s never been a single example of true PRT built in the history of public transit. That’s the issue.
Could it be the fastest, cheapest and best solution? Sure. But it’s never been proven.
As for the Burnaby proposal itself, do we have any research on how the MISTER system handles steep inclines? After all, the proposed line is to go up the side of A MOUNTAIN, the exact thing a cable propelled system does better than any other technology.
MISTER seems like an interesting concept. But until one is actually built (in a large scale, throughout a city), seems like all the cost figures are simply hearsay or speculation.
Although it may be a wonderful idea if implemented correctly, it’s hard – esp for decision-makers – to take these new technologies seriously simply because there’s no well-established examples nor company to back up their claims.
If common transit typologies like LRT and BRT systems, even cable experience overrun costs, its probably likely that the MISTER system will experience the same issues but on a much grander scale since nobody knows what to do…except the engineer.
Actually, this proposal reminds of the aerobus concept but smaller and more nimble. God knows what happened to that proposal.
@ Mono,
“If common transit typologies like LRT and BRT systems, even cable experience overrun costs, its probably likely that the MISTER system will experience the same issues but on a much grander scale since nobody knows what to do…except the engineer.”
Exactly.
btw, the screaming colombian woman is hilarious. we need a translation badly.
@ Mono,
I’m not sure we want that much profanity on this site ;).
@ Steven: “When I ask “haven’t we heard this before?” I’m pointing out that this is such a common tactic of the PRT industry”
PRT industry tactic? What PRT industry? It doesn’t exist. Yet.
“PRT loves to proclaim itself faster, better and cheaper and capable of doing everything for everyone.”
Not ‘everything’, but certainly much faster, far cheaper and when it comes to most urban applications, both ‘better’ and more-‘capable’ than gondola.
“there’s never been a single example of true PRT built in the history of public transit”. It’s never been proven”.
What does it take to be ‘proven’? CabinTaxi, which featured over-under cabins, over a period of half a decade in the 70’s covered hundreds of thousands of kilometers and demonstrated switching at .5 second headway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbUfwsDmdsk Or a derivative, CabinLift, which connects to remote hospital units and has been running for decades. Or Morgantown WV, which has been in operation connecting two university campuses for decades and carries thousands of passengers every day. Or ULTra, which is now (and yes, after significant teething problems) operation at Heathrow. More on the way.
“As for the Burnaby proposal itself, do we have any research on how the MISTER system handles steep inclines?”
MISTER – which has several patents either issued or pending – claims it does. Besides, the idea behind MISTER is not to straight-line it up the side of the mountain, but rather to utilize the existing roadways, so no ‘steep inclines’.
“the proposed line is to go up the side of A MOUNTAIN, the exact thing a cable propelled system does better than any other technology.”
Yes, if point to point service up the side of a mountain is the intent. But if the intent is to serve the surrounding community, not just the university community, be privately financed and operated (no $78 million burden on taxpayers), provide 24/7 service, be energy-efficient, be heated and AC’d, eliminate ‘peeping tom’ lawsuits, blend with the environment, provide personal security, and be domestically manufactured, gondola ain’t the way to do it.
@ Mono: “…until one is actually built (in a large scale, throughout a city), seems like all the cost figures are simply hearsay or speculation. It’s probably likely that MISTER will experience (cost overruns) on a grand scale since nobody knows what to do…except the engineer.”
If it were ‘new’ technology, perhaps. But MISTER, according to its proponent, Mr. Mikozsa, is all off-the-shelf technology. We know what concrete, raw steel and what a small car costs (think of a $2,500 wheel-less Nana), and any competent engineer can readily determine what it will cost, so chances are that won’t be an issue.
“…it’s hard to take these new technologies seriously simply because there’s no well-established examples nor company to back up their claims.”
Au contraire. As pointed out (above) there are well-established examples. The major problem is that decision makers have no incentive to be innovative. Just listen to Steven
“…this proposal reminds me of Aerobus but smaller and more nimble. God knows what happened to that proposal.”
God and Dennis Stallings. And neither are talking. At least to me. Personally, I think it (Aerobus) has tremendous potential, particularly in high speed intercity applications. I would love to see it’s main China project succeed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3peHnmYUzk
@ Dave,
The point of the Burnaby system is, indeed, to provide “point to point service up the side of a mountain.” The idea is to eliminate the winding trek up the mountain road. Having the MISTER system replicate the bus route would provide no real advantage.