After the Emirates Air Line fiasco, most people in the UK had written off cable cars as a valid public transport mode. But reading about the official gondola proposal for Vancouver’s Burnaby Mountain university campus as an ideal solution, this mode warrants another look.
Niche transport modes are ideal solutions, but only for specific geographic transport problems – funiculars, catamarans, hydrofoils, and cable cars. The key is not to fall for the salesperson’s or politician’s pitch, but to apply them appropriately. Cable cars are increasingly being constructed to connect topographically constrained urban areas in an inexpensive and quick manner.
Whilst London’s Emirates Air Line is appropriate for a wide river crossing, it’s not needed at all in that location – it serves no urban transport purpose there. It now operates at less than 10% capacity. Instead, it is a novelty, a folly, an expensive farce, a monument to empty gestures and lack of practical vision.
This is the next instalment in our occasional series looking at hitherto under-appreciated, sometimes maligned, lesser known, and oft idiosyncratic transport modes. We look at the recent trend of urban cable cars in operation, under construction, and under formal evaluation in western cities. The technology is becoming a legitimate city transport mode worthy of serious evaluation, as in South America, France, and soon British Columbia. They’re not just for tourists and expos any more.
Terms of endearment
Cable car, aerial tramway, gondola, cableway, ropeway, cable propelled transit (CPT) – there are many names for this mode. But there are nuances with each of these terms, although we shall be using cable car, cableway, and gondolas as they are the most common terms. Note that cable propulsion also includes land-based cable hauled trains and trams – like San Francisco’s famously terrestrial based cable cars – but they are not covered in this article. In Spanish and French, the airborne cableway terms are teleférico and téléphérique respectively. The similar English term telepheric is actually a faux ami, a false friend, as it is the name for conveyor wires to fly actors over a stage.
Types of cable power
There are two main families of aerial cableways:
- Aerial tramways are cable transport systems with one or two vehicles moving back and forth on a fixed track, between two, and only two, stations . The cabins are typically large, sized to carry from 40 up to 200 passengers, but such lines have half the capacity of gondolas.
- Gondolas have detachable cabins moving along on a unidirectional loop. The cabins are generally small, carrying between 4 and 40 people. The cable grab mechanism allows cabins to be stopped in a station without slowing the flow of cabins on the loop. Station docking mechanisms slow down and speed up cabins after station stops. Furthermore, multiple stations and turning the line are possible, unlike aerial trams, and total distance is limited to lines of about 5 kilometres in length, with a maximum of about 5 stations.
As long as the aerial tram and gondola cabin platforms have step free access, there is no technical reason that space cannot be set aside for wheelchairs, scooters, and/or bikes.
The Emirates Air Line in London is a mono-cable (suspended and propelled by a single cable), and it shuts down at winds greater than 30 mph (45 kph), which occurs about 30 days a year. Bi- or tri-cable systems provide greatly enhanced stability and safety, allowing for operation during major winds (up to 100 km/h).
South America’s terrific teleféricos
Decades before cities of Europe discovered city téléphériques, South American cities have been pioneers of urban cableways. With hilly cities with many deprived favela neighbourhoods built on hillsides, with no road and where even the alleyways twist and turn, surface and underground options are limited.
So these cities looked to the past and created modern cable car lines to provide transportation there. They have drastically and cost-effectively cut commute times between poor and the more prosperous employment areas. Arrival of a cable car station has also marked the beginning of greater investment in previously neglected areas of the city, and often a reduction in crime.
In 2004, Medellin became the first city in the world to fully integrate cable cars into its existing metro network. But the Bolivian capital of La Paz, located in a canyon, now has six cable car lines transporting 160,000 passengers per day. Some of these lines carry 3,000 people per hour per direction (pphpd), and one carries 65,000 people daily. It is the world’s largest urban cable car system, over 16km long and with 25 stations across the city – Mi Teleférico is La Paz’s principal public transport system. Four additional lines are being planned.
Brest is Europe’s urban cable car pioneer
Possibly best known to Britons as the port that harboured the Kriegsmarine battlecruisers Gneisenau and Scharnhorst during the Second World War, Brest opened France’s first urban téléphérique in November 2016. It links the sides of La Penfeld river where it flows through the port. Its cabins can transport up to 60 passengers and dash across the river in only three minutes. With departures every five minutes, the line transports 1 200 people per hour. One of the stations is near a station on the city’s tram line, and the cableway is fully fare integrated with the city’s transit network.
Furthermore, the descent of a cabin charges super-capacitors to store energy. New cables with a smoother profile have been installed to reduce rolling noise. The cable car has been a success, having met its millionth passenger ridership objective in less than two years from opening. And it is still popular. Here are some stunning aerial views of the Brest cable car line.
Toulouse
The headquarter city of aviation giant Airbus Industrie ironically has a 3km urban tri-cable téléphérique currently under construction, connecting medical science districts on either side of a small mountain. The Téléo téléphérique will connect three major traffic generators, l’Oncopole (The University Cancer Institute of Toulouse, with 10 000 jobs in the immediate area), Hôpital Rangueil (200 000 medical visits annually), and the Université Paul Sabatier (30 000 students) and Métro station, separated by a river and a 130 metre high small mountain and park.
These three medical institutions work together closely, so there is a need to provide quick transport between them. However, it currently takes 30 minutes by car, and longer by public transport, to travel from one end to the other. But the téléphérique will cut that to only 10 minutes end to end, every 90 seconds, with the 15 cabins transporting more than 8 000 passengers daily as part of the Toulouse public transport network.
With pylons looking a bit like concrete Eiffel Towers poked into the ground, design has not be neglected either. And they are truly gigantesque in height, the tallest being 63 metres (207 ft) high. The line is expected to open in summer 2021.
Take me away to Marseille
Marseille is constructing a cableway to connect the Vieux Port with the major tourist site of Notre Dame de la Garde, in just six minutes. Systra, a part of SNCF, has done preliminary design work. The Old Port is a major ferry and cruise ship terminal, bringing in many tourists to see Notre-Dame de la Garde Basilica perched atop the city’s highest hill. Ten times cheaper than a tram connection, and three times cheaper than a Metro station, the téléphérique will remove many of the tourist buses from streets around the La Bonne Mère (the Good Mother), as the locals call the Basilica, by transporting up to 2 million people a year.
Covering 1 km horizontally, and more importantly 150 m vertically, the téléphérique will link these two major tourist sites much more quietly and sustainably than buses. Unfortunately progress has been delayed by the pandemic.
Paris
In 2018, RATP studied 13 urban téléphérique projects in the Île-de-France region. The most promising was the Créteil Téléva in the southern suburbs, which will connect neighbourhoods divided by a highway, TGV line, freight railway, and a steep ridge. The Département du Val-de-Marne and Île-de-France Mobilités are proposing a five station, 4.5 km téléphérique between Créteil and Villeneuve-Saint-Georges to open by 2024, at an estimated cost of €132m (£119m).
Note that the only central Paris cableway link evaluated is between Gare de Lyon and Gare d’Austerlitz across the Seine, replacing a 900m walk (with no direct Métro connection) with a scenic and relaxing 500m téléphérique link for beluggaged passenger. Perhaps something for London to consider? However this intermodal Parisien railway station link was considered too expensive for what would for most travellers be a healthy walk.
The Créteil Téléval Câble A will start at Créteil – Pointe du Lac Métro Line 8 terminal station, replacing a 40 minute bus ride with a 17 minute sky ride, with cabins every 30 seconds and an average speed of 20 kph, fare integrated with the Île-de-France public transport network. The cabins will be fully accessible to people with reduced mobility. Progress is proceeding apace – Île-de-France Mobilités voted unanimously to approve the téléphérique on October 9, 2020.
That Île-de-France Mobilités initiated a letter series (Câble A) for téléphériques indicates their high confidence in this new transport mode.
Other French cities taking up Brest’s lead
A number of other French cities are now evaluating and planning to install this form of urban transportation. Notably, riverine cities Bordeaux, Lyon, Nantes, Orléans, and Rouen are evaluating central city téléphériques to relieve congested bridges.
Grenoble has had a ‘tourist’ cable car since 1934, but the city plans to construct a new, six station, 3.7 km urban cableway for locals in the northern suburbs to cross two rivers, railways, and motorways, and to connect with three tram lines. More importantly, the téléphérique will link the Presqu’île university & scientific district on the (almost) island quickly and efficiently with local neighbourhoods.
Over the frontier in Switzerland, Geneva is evaluating a six station cable car line, connecting city neighbourhoods at various altitudes to the airport.
Vancouver, British Columbia
Vancouver’s climate is similar to Britain’s – rainy, with only occasional snow. Being nestled in the Rocky Mountains, cable cars have been used for decades on the province’s hundreds of ski hills. It turns out that this technology may well be used in Canada’s third largest city.
The problem statement: a busy university located on top of Burnaby Mountain, itself surrounded by single family home neighbourhoods. Articulated buses leave every two minutes up and down the 370 metre tall mountain to connect students, professors, and staff to the nearby SkyTrain line 2.7 km away. However, the diesel buses are polluting, and in snowy or sleet conditions they slip and slide dangerously.
This is an ideal situation to build a cable car.
To transport the 3,000 passengers per hour required to take almost all the buses off the mountain, the Burnaby Mountain Gondola is proposing to use large, 35 person cabins travelling every 60 seconds. The cabins will also have space for wheelchairs, mobility devices, scooters, and bikes.
This is an industrial strength cable car using a technology known as 3S, which unlike the more common gondolas like the Emirates Air Line and those used in a number of cities across Latin America. It utilises 3 cables with one for pulling the large gondolas and 2 for supporting their weight. The 3S gondola system provides the ability to operate in high wind conditions, increased ridership capacity, and energy-efficiency, which results in lower operating costs.
TransLink is Metro Vancouver’s public transportation network operator, and it has been leading the proposal, best demonstrated via this animation, in concert with Simon Fraser University (SFU). Three route options are being considered:
- Option 1 is direct, providing best transit times, covering the 2.7 km distance in only six minutes. In addition, passengers on the Expo SkyTrain line would not be required to transfer. With the lowest construction ($210m CAD, £124m) and operating costs ($1.6 million lower than each of the other two routes), and the highest estimated 2035 ridership of 30,400 per weekday, it is the preferred choice.
- Option 2 is a 3.7km route taking 11 minutes, and costing $237m (£139m), having an estimated 2035 weekday ridership of 28,200.
- Option 3 is a 3.6km route taking 10 minutes, costing $231m (£136m), but the estimated 2035 ridership is only 25,400 per weekday.
Options 2 and 3 had been added to address the concerns privacy, potential noise, and impact on property values of homeowners under the route of Option 1. However it does not appear that TransLink is aware of the automatically self-opaquing window technology that has been successfully used on Brest’s cable cars since 2016. As for noise, Brest upgraded to smoother profile cables which greatly reduced this nuisance.
The TransLink survey of local residents and SFU commuters elicited 13,000 responses, which were 84% in favour of the scheme, although those under the path of Option 1 were only 34% in favour.
About 25,000 bus trips were made to campus each weekday pre-COVID, and after a return to normality is predicted to eventually increase to 40,000. The Gondola would replace the existing bus route to Production Way-University Station, which is prone to lengthy traffic delays that sometimes triples the journey time, and oft has frequent full bus passbys. The Gondola would allow reallocation of up to 26 buses. The line will also likely reduce parking atop the mountain, which is inline with city policy. Transit mode share to and from SFU is predicted to improve with the faster, more reliable, and more fun cableway.
In related news, TransLink just announced on September 3, 2020 the design-build contract award, a 5.7 km extension of the Millennium Line, the first phase of planned extension of the SkyTrain rail network to the University of British Columbia. Adding the gondola link to the Simon Fraser University’s mountain campus will connect Vancouver’s universities via the city’s rapid transit network, ushering in a new era in urban connectivity in the region.
Advantages of Cableways
Developed for the harsh climate of ski hills, gondolas are a hardy transplant to milder city environments. Furthermore, the mechanical and electrical simplicity of cableway systems has provided near 100% reliability. In case of electrical outages, lines have an emergency backup generator.
Cableways excel in transporting passengers over geographic obstacles and height differences, crossing rivers, valleys, and harbours, and scaling hills, many times cheaper than building a new road, rail line, tunnel, or bridge. And with a much smaller footprint than tram lines. A kilometre of cableway costs about half as much to install as the same length of tram line, and takes much less time to construct. Once approved, cableway systems can be designed and built in about a year.
Providing an unparalleled frequency of service that can be measured in seconds, urban cable cars have average operating speeds of 16-20 km/h. Compared to buses and trams in major cities averaging only 8-12km/h when in mixed traffic.
Furthermore, the increasingly crowded subterranean environment, as we have investigated, as well as the very high tunnelling costs, mean that underground is no longer the preferred option. And with busy city streets being increasingly shared between modes – vehicle traffic, bus lanes, and cycle lanes – the remaining option is looking up.
Cable cars provide scaleability – there is virtually no incremental cost in adding capacity and lowering wait times to gondolas, just add cabins to the line. With a streetcar or bus system, the incremental cost is significant to expand capacity or lower wait times, in expensive vehicles and staff to operate them.
With electric motors, cableways use significantly less energy and emit much less CO2 than diesel or hybrid buses, and are much quieter. Their simplicity provides near 100% reliability. In case of electrical outages, lines have an emergency backup generator. Operating costs are also quite low. Even though the Emirates Air Line carries only 10 percent of its capacity, it still generates revenue for TfL, such is the low cost of maintenance and motive electricity required.
Cableways are one of the world’s safest forms of transportation, having multiple redundant systems. The chances of a person being killed or serious injured on a cable car is less than than while skiing, ironically. In the United States, there has not been a lift-related fatality at a ski area since 1993. When an accident does occur, keep in mind another Rule of Thumb – the degree of media coverage of a given technology’s failure is inversely related to the chance of that failure’s occurrence.
Disadvantages
However, cableways are more limited in capacity than terrestrial trams, as the chart below from a recent Edmonton (Canada) study demonstrates. The ‘rubber tyre-based tramway’ in the chart is more commonly known as bus rapid transit (BRT), unguided and on its own, usually separated, bus lanes. Note too that the tramways it cites are apparently all in mixed traffic, with the shortest tramway cars being a North American streetcar implementation – a traffic separated LRT has a maximum capacity of over 10,000 pphpd.
Furthermore, cableways are not always well received by residents under the path of a line, who are worried about being observed from above. To address this issue, the Brest cabins are equipped with panes that automatically become opaque as the cable cars pass over certain areas.
Looking Down on US Traffic
In New York City, the Roosevelt Island AirTram line was constructed to serve the island’s new housing projects in the 1970s before a subway station was constructed. Used by locals and tourists, as it offers a scenic view of Manhattan. The AirTram cabins can hold 125 passengers, moving 1,500 passengers per hour (in both directions). Despite the subway station finally opening on the island in 1989, the tram remains very popular – the tram was completely refurbished in 2010 rather than removed. In recognition of its important public transit role, the fare was recently integrated with the MTA transit system.
The Portland Oregon Aerial Tram is a 1 km line that connects the city’s South Waterfront District and campus with the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) atop Marquam Hill. It replaced a bus route which took up to 25 minutes, versus only 4 minutes by cable. OHSU personnel and transit pass holders ride free, but a round-trip ticket for sightseers is $4.35. Trams arrive every seven minutes and can carry 78 people per cabin, of whom 85% are typically hospital and student related, wit the remaining 15% comprising the general public and tourists. The lower tram station is a great multi-modal transit hub, connecting to the Portland Streetcar, buses, and bike racks. This integration has contributed to its success and more than 1.4 million passengers ride the cables annually.
The Aerial Tram is a runaway success – it is already approaching its maximum capacity ridership. However, unlike gondolas, aerial trams are not scalable – it is not possible to add more cabins. So Portland has ceased all marketing and promotions since the line cannot accommodate much more growth.
How to tell if a cable car is actually useful or just a tourist trap?
A simple Rule of Thumb – if a cable car line:
- connects two or more actual neighbourhoods or business districts, and
- has a station at a well used public transport station or stop, and
- the cable car is fare integrated with a city’s transit system,
then it is likely a true urban transport link.
For instance, the Roosevelt Island and Portland Aerial Trams satisfy all three conditions. But the Emirates Air Line fails all three – Emirates Air Line journeys are a separate fare, not included in the TfL fare scheme. This reinforces the lack of utility of this line for locals.
Some cities do fare integrate their cable car line, but also offer a cheap return fare for sightseeing tourists.
Cabin design
Not being high speed, the design of cable car cabins is quite arbitrary – they need not be aerodynamic, just have large windows. Nonetheless, as cabin design is one aspect which is not constrained by operational requirements, it allows designers to make the cabins more attractive.
Here is a closeup of Brest’s modernised Art Deco styled cabin:
Now over to Portland…
Portland’s streamlined pods are reminiscent of the ‘power egg’ engine pods of the Imperial Airship Service’s R.101 airship:
Tower design
Even gondola towers can be made much more than utilitarian. We’ve already seen Toulouse’s inverted Eiffel Towers. Now, the one thing that the Emirates Air Line did right:
Shame about the bad planning of the line as a whole, as described by The Beauty of Transport’s Pie in the Sky review.
Station design
Cableway station land take is limited, as the space beneath the cables can be used for other purposes. Stations are sometimes built into upper levels of buildings for even less urban impact, as in Brest. Cabins use a detachable grip to grab the cable, which automatically releases when it arrives in a station, reattaching itself once the cabin is ready to leave again.
Ideally, the stations are sited near or in two or more passenger traffic generators or a transit hub.
The only demographic not likely to use cableways are acrophobes, those afraid of heights, which comprise around 10 percent of the population (including the author). However with willpower, and the cumulative benefits of a shorter commute, this can be overcome.
Too easy to crayon
The low cost and go-anywhere ability of cable car lines lends itself to being a crayonista’s dream (crayonista being the name for people who ‘crayon’ new rapid lines on maps, usually without regard to practicality, cost, or physical restrictions). Hence elected and aspiring politicians down to the very local level are oft tempted to propose cable cars pet schemes. As a result, all cable propelled transport proposals must be evaluated by the level of official interest they generate.
Taking the most recent urban aerial tram cost, Vancouver’s Burnaby Mountain’s estimate of $73m/km or £43m/km, this seems pricey, only about 30% lower than a much higher capacity rail tramway. However, cableway costs must be seen in comparison to a bridge or tunnel solution over the transport encumbrance, which would be many times that cost. A funicular would be necessary at Burnaby Mountain due to the steep road, but the lower funicular station would still be over a kilometre from the SkyTrain station.
Circling back to the UK
The United Kingdom is not known for its gondolas. Other than Emirates Air Line, there are three other gondola systems in the country, but none in urban settings: the Nevis Range gondola near Fort William, Scotland, the Skyride at the Alton Towers theme park, and the Heights of Abraham Cable Car in Matlock Bath.
Back in London, however, for its study for a new pedestrians and cyclists river crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf, TfL did evaluate a cable car option. The mandated height for the Thames navigation channel is 60m above Mean High Water Springs – the clearance under the Emirates Air Line (the clearance at Tower Bridge is only 42.5m).
But TfL discounted a Rotherhithe – Canary Wharf cableway crossing at an early stage, stating it was “not feasible”, but providing no explanation. Sustrans in 2015 had estimated capability to provide 13,000 journeys a day for this crossing, independent of mode. The maximum capacity of existing cable car systems is 6,000 to 8,000 pphpd, however bringing bikes and mobility devices on board would greatly decrease those numbers. Yet, even at half the maximum cable car capacity, 4,000 pphpd, at 16 hours a day in both directions, would provide transport for 128,000 people per day. So we suspect that Canary Wharf objected to a cable car option (they are notoriously demanding), perhaps as not befitting the financial centre’s stature and image, given the ridicule that the Emirates Air Line has elicited. It is important to note that the relations between Canary Wharf Group and the Mayor have been a bit fraught, as in the Mayor Khan’s view Canary Wharf will be the main beneficiaries of this improved cross river link, so should be paying more towards it.
The three potential options that were shortlisted for the Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf crossing for further assessment and review were: a navigable bridge (which still allows shipping to pass), a tunnel, and an enhanced ferry. Since the initial public consultation, the preferred navigable bridge was found to be too expensive, given the large bridge footings necessary for a sufficiently high bridge to allow ships to pass.
Unfortunately with TfL’s budgetary problems, and the COVID lockdowns hammering revenues, there is currently no money to direct towards improving this link. Perchance TfL could move an existing and much under-utilised asset?
Could we see another cable car in London?
Perhaps TfL’s ongoing budgetary crisis and cross Thames connectivity needs might force them to look again at cable cars for Thames crossings, by moving the Emirates Air Line to a more useful location. Eastern Docklands has a paucity of pedestrian / cycle crossings, so as long as the new route actually serves a transport demand, it’s worth moving the Air Line millstone.
Urban gondolas need to address a real transport problem
Urban gondolas are successful where they are a cost effective solution that cannot inexpensively be overcome by other options, such as challenging geographical locations. And connect two passenger nodes, with physical and fare integration with the city’s public transport network.
South American cities built cable cars to economically depressed and isolated neighbourhoods. Where oh where in London fits this description? Thamesmead.
Many thanks to Reece Martin (RMTransit on YouTube) for information on the Burnaby Mountain Gondola and http://gondolaproject.com/ for urban system lists and technical details.
Thanks for this.
I’d thought before that Rotherhithe (Canada Water/Surrey Quays) to Canary Wharf would make a useful two station extension to the EAL, but maybe simply moving it would be the cheapest option!
If City Hall does move to The Crystal though, one imagines that the GLA will want to keep the existing route. Indeed, one suspects part of the thinking behind the move is to promote traffic on the EAL.
The Emirates Air Line pylons may look smart but the spiral cladding added a rotating component to the inevitable movement resulting from weather/temperature change etc. A lot of extra metal was required to compensate, to ensure that the guide wheels for the rope remained perfectly aligned.
LBM
topographically constrained urban areas in an inexpensive and quick manner. Quite so: A river, perhaps, maybe – if ferries or rali or road tunnels are not practicable – or, “mountains” – meaninf, spcifically relatively great/sudden changes in altitude in a shor horizontal space, so that road/rail/canal would bee too expensive for the traffic-volume upon offer.
By those criteria, almost nowhere in London qualifies, but it might in a city of many hills & valleys, like Sheffield, maybe? ( Bristol? Liverpool? )
“Terms of Endearment”
Well the London one is called the “Dangleway” now, the other prefix having been dropped in a probably-correct act of Political Correctness (!)
The sections on Colombia & Brest make another point lost to London – full integration with the fares system!
All of which goes to show that Cable-Cars, by whatever name may be a good idea, just not where (*cough*) ego-driven politicans want them – which brings us to:
Where in London would actually be a good idea to have one?
And your suggestion of Thamesmead might cut the mustard, since the Plumstead Marshes ( As they were previously known ) are a transport desert, otherwise, missing out on DLR several times …
I’ve occasionally thought that the Dangleway points the wrong direction, in my head it should have linked (what is now) Wood Wharf to the Dome. To get the aforementioned box of crayons out, I wonder what the cost would be of a Royal Victoria – North Greenwich – Wood Wharf/Blackwall Basin – Westferry Circus – Rotherhithe Street – Canada Water link might be? If one wanted to value engineer the project, one could have a single stop on the Isle of Dogs at Montgomery Square with a shorter OSI to the Jubilee Line.
And if one wanted to make it really scenic one could follow the ornamental canal from Surrey Water to Canada Water, Schwebebahn style.
Fascinating article – thanks. I didn’t realise so many cable cars are being introduced in European cities.
@Paul. I’m not convinced that the GLA move to the Crystal will suddenly increase use of the dangleway. The existing transport connections (either the DLR at Royal Victoria or Elizabeth Line at Custom House are a very short walk) will continue to be far more useful. The dangleway will only be useful for those travelling from SE London to the Crystal by cycle (and for many of those, the Woolwich ferry or foot tunnel remain a reasonable option).
I agree that these niche systems only work if there is a genuine need, and I agree Thamesmead fits the bill. I suggest that is not the only possibility. A point alluded to in the article (but I think worth emphasising) is in providing cycle crossing over the Thames east of Tower Bridge. If the Mayor (and Mr Gilligan?) really do want to continue to increase the number of journeys made by cycle, the insurmountable barrier that is the Thames needs to be addressed. Between Tower Bridge and the Woolwich ferry (and excluding both), there are six public transport crossing opportunities but only three cycle crossing points (and two of those have limited hours). Those three existing cycle crossing points all have shortcomings. Taking each in turn. The existing DoubleTree/Hilton ferry is infrequent and has difficult access on the Rotherhithe side. The Greenwich foot tunnel is horribly crowded in (non-Covid) rush-hour and also on summer weekends., and it seems beyond the wit of Greenwich council to set up a maintenance contract that keeps the lifts operational. The dangleway closes relatively early in the evening, doesn’t run in high wind, and is (compared to other options) expensive.
That said, tfl have absolutely no spare cash so I don’t suppose we’re likely to see any new provision.
The dangleway would have been a lot more useful as overflow transport capacity for the Excel centre if the existing station was closer to the entrance at one end, and if it was extended over the centre to the other end. With opportunities to include the ride in the conference pass.
To an extent, Crossrail will now fill that need (when it opens, eventually, and when the Excel is no longer a Nightingale), although there is still quite a bit of walking to do if your event is in the “dangleway” end of the Excel (from Dangleway or any DLR or Crossrail).
The Dangleway does link The Crystal to a large (currently unoccupied) TfL office building, so it might get some use when real in-person meetings start up again, though only if the relevant staff are allowed to use it free, which they aren’t at the moment. On the other hand there are plans for some GLA staff to move to the TfL office at Southwark, and logically they would be the ones who need to have meetings with TfL.
An excellent video tour of the Dangleway here, humorously pointing out its many failings.
A lot of criticism aimed at the Dangleway and yet even the article acknowledges that it runs at a profit. And with a capital cost of only £18m (after EU grant and Emirates sponsorship) I fail to see why it’s such a big source of controversy. The fact that it has a lot of spare capacity is irrelevant when even the few passengers it does carry are more than enough to cover its costs. And it was delivered in under two years from start to finish, which compares pretty favourably to other Thames crossings.
I think more cable cars could be a quick and relatively cheap way of linking communities severed by railways, waterways and so on.
@Chris H
It is only irrelevant, if the opportunity cost of not building it in a better location is ignored.
If the capacity was being used, then it would be making significantly more money, probably without significantly higher capital costs.
From a transport planning perspective it remains an extremely poor use of money, as far as its initial capital costs are concerned.
@Chris H
Based on the most recent figures I can find via FOI, which are for 2016, the EAL took £6,175k in fares revenue and spent £6,474k in operating cost. It’s only the £3,600k of sponsorship revenue from Emirates that made it profitable. In some years it has indeed made a small operating profit, and they say costs have been reduced since 2016, but nevertheless if the Emirates deal is not renewed when it’s up next year this will put the future of the dangleway in doubt. 2020 aside, it does seem to make a real profit in the summer months, so perhaps we’ll see it cut back to being a seasonal attraction. Selling it to a commercial operator – for example the operator of the 02 – would make sense for a cash-strapped TfL.
And of course, we shouldn’t double count the sponsorship money – if we want to say they contributed £36m to the build cost, then they’re not also paying £3.6m a year towards operating costs – this is the same money, so the “profit” to date won’t have come close to paying back the build cost of £60m (minus the £8m from the EU).
I guess the obvious question is…. could you stick another one between Thamesmede (for Abbey Wood) and Barking Riverside? Clearly a rail crossing under the Thames here would be a great addition to the capital’s transport network (not my crayons but that of Mayor Boris in his London 2050 publications).
Looing at the 1300m length of the existing Dangleway, Dangleway 2 could join up the new Barking Riverside station to Manorway Green, which is (technically) in Thamesmede.
A commitment to replace it with a train or DLR later might make it a useful fill-in to get the re-development of Thamesmede funded by the private sector. Perhaps a non-stopping bus from Abbey Wood Crossrail and Thamesmede “Central”.
@Brian
Barking Reach Overground station is about 2km from Thamesmead as the cable car flies. Another 2km south is Abbey Wood Crossrail / National Rail station, also within range of a multiple station Gondola line. This would be much quicker and less expensive to construct than an Overground or DLR tunnel or bridge across the Thames. And it would finally connect Thamesmead with frequent, rapid public transport, which has frustrated residents and transport planners ever since it opened in 1968.
Meanwhile, the city of Mombasa, Kenya will have a cable car in a place where it is actually needed.
It is not entirely clear when construction will start (some internet sources say 2018) but given the environmental impact report was published just days ago (https://www.nema.go.ke/images/Docs/EIA_1780-1789/ESIA%201790%20Likoni%20Cable%20Express.pdf), it looks like it is still going ahead despite COVID.
(See page 83 and further for drawings of the proposed towers and stations. It has to be very tall to allow cargo ships to pass underneath.)
Could a cable-car contribute to the de-isolation of Muswell Hill? There’s certainly a substantial height difference between the centre of MH and either of its credible rail-heads: Ally Pally (ex-Wood Green GN) to the east and Highgate (Northern Line) to the west And a cable-car gets over (literally) the ‘some idiot built schools on the line of the abandoned New Works project in the 1960s’ problem. Doubtless crayono-funiculistas could design an entire Northern Heights network reaching down to Gospel Oak and, dare one say, Finsbury Park…
I travelled around La Paz on the Teleférico when I was there in February. The whole system works really well and was extremely cheap. It couldn’t be more different from the Emirates Air Line.
Probably the biggest provider of cable car services in the UK was Butlins.
Remember going on the Pwllheli one in the 1970s. It took people from the camp to the beach. Apparently it (along with the Ayr one) soldiered on until 1998.
There were 6 in all. Ayr, Barry Island, Filey Minehead, Pwllheli and Skegness.
http://www.butlins-memories.com/other/chairlifts.htm
Thanks for this very detailed review. Incidentally, Haifa, Israel, is another city that built a folly, back in the eighties, and is now building a useful cable car for transportation purposes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_cars_in_Haifa
I agree that cable cars can be useful for certain purposes. The list of criteria is sound as well. But some of this article does have the ring of a marketing brochure.
“Taking the most recent urban aerial tram cost, Vancouver’s Burnaby Mountain’s estimate of $73m/km or £43m/km, this seems pricey, only about 30% lower than a much higher capacity rail tramway.” Do tramways really cost 60+ million pounds / km even in the UK? Most European tram systems come in at around 20-25 million euros / km, including rolling stock and depots. Less for just the infrastructure when extending an existing system. NET phase two seems to have cost £570 million for 17.5 km or £32.6 million / km. US costs are a different matter. Simply not comparable to European costs.
I’m also mindful of investment cost claims. Gothenburg (Göteborg) cancelled their project after costs had reached about 200 million euros. Clearly there have been affordable project, but one must check what is available at a lower cost and what needs more money. The Paris project quoted certainly costs at least as much as a tramway.
“Compared to buses and trams in major cities averaging only 8-12km/h when in mixed traffic.” may be true, but tram lines aren’t normally built in mixed traffic, except for US streetcars. Typical speeds are 18 – 21 km/h for urban lines and higher for lines with less frequent stops. This applies to BHLS/BHLS type bus services as well.
“Furthermore, the increasingly crowded subterranean environment, as we have investigated, as well as the very high tunnelling costs, mean that underground is no longer the preferred option.” Depends on the capacity needed. Can’t really make a blanket statement like this.
“This integration has contributed to its success and more than 1.4 million passengers ride the cables annually.” Certainly the Portland aerial tram is very suitable for the location. Still 1.4 million is only about 4700 per weekday. (Dividing by a typical 300.) So perfectly fit for purpose, but not a huge crowd mover. This is relevant when assessing value for money.
The main limitation of cable cars is connectivity. Line length and station counts are limited as noted. This means that more transfers are needed in the overall network. If you can manage a direct line for a whole corridor, overall connectivity will be better. Geography or cost may prohibit this though as in the presented cases. And the Thamesmead case seems interesting. A direct rail line would probably be more desirable, but very expensive, so improved connections to the existing network seem worth studying.
The last time I was involved with a cable car study a small downside was that cabins weren’t provided with electricity. Lighting could be managed with batteries, but heating could not. This might have changed.
Finally a nitpick:
“Yet, even at half the maximum cable car capacity, 4,000 pphpd, at 16 hours a day in both directions, would provide transport for 128,000 people per day.” (Public) transport demand is never even over the day. COVID may change things a bit, but the current rule of thumb is about 10% of the whole day demand one way in the peak hour. So 4,000 pphd would be around 40,000. Still a respectable number and sufficient for the case presented.
@Lauri
In the UK, one basic problem with building tram lines is twofold:
(i) Underground utilities have been privatised in the UK.
(ii) These private asset owners have the right on objection to any proposed alteration to the highway which _might_ impede their access.
Hence the higher costs. European tramway costs are lower per km by 50-75%, but they have publicly owned utilities.
I don’t think that £43m/km for a UK tram line is inaccurate. One recent UK tramway construction is the 11km Midland Metro extension from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill to the north-west of Birmingham, which is estimated to cost £449.5M, in 2019. This is £40.9M/km.
Au contraire, Birmingham’s Eastside tram extension downtown to Curzon Street HS2 station was estimated (in February 2020) at £227.2M for the one mile (1.6km) double track line – So tram construction figures can vary greatly, even on the same network, due to topography, level of stop design and extent of isolation from traffic, plus the number and size of any bridges required, etc.
With regards to gondolas, the straightforward comparison to tram costs is skewed by what I believe are opportunity costs – to build a tram along a cable car route would much more expensive than on a typical, relatively level implementation in city streets, with little change in elevation. A tram line replicating a cableway route would have to build a bridge over obstacles (rivers, highways, train tracks), or require rack or switchbacks for scaling heights, that cableways soar over. Which was inferred in the article, but I could’ve made clearer.
For instance, were a tram line be constructed to Vancouver’s Burnaby Mountain instead of a gondola, it would need a rack system (or a separate funicular) to scale the mountain safely, given the mountain’s issues with snow and ice. Such a line would easily cost over $1B Canadian.
Gondolas make easy what is very costly for trams to do.
Also, Burnaby Mountain has a strong all-day ridership profile, due to classes all day and into the evening, hence the high projected daily ridership.
Cable cars do have lower capacity than an LRT line, but are more flexible in the frequency of service they can provide, as well as the geography they can fly over. Like most things in life, it’s a tradeoff. The expertise is applying the best most given the geographic constraints, ridership, public transport goals (ie no diesel, high capacity or not etc), and budget.
@LBM
I certainly agree that Burnaby Mountain looks like a perfect fit for a gondola. The physical constraints alone probably justify a gondola, but other criteria are also met. The line is basically a point to point metro feeder. This means that a conventional “linear” technology wouldn’t offer additional connectivity at either end. The campus is a limited area and can be served with sufficiently few stops (in this case one) to work as a gondola. In theory branching the metro could offer more connectivity at the other end, but I assume this isn’t a realistic option here.
For a counterexample we have a line in Helsinki that needs a series of bridges to cross water. The longest bridge will be about 1 km long. But the line also starts the Central Railway Station (the most important node) and serves multiple stops on two branches at the other end plus a few stops along the way. A gondola was proposed at one point, but would have to start two metro stops away from the central station and would only serve 1-3 other stops. Thus connectivity and coverage would not be sufficient, although the investment would be significantly smaller.
I also agree that varying conditions make general cost comparisons difficult. And that gondolas are most suited for locations where other options would end up being very costly. But this does run the risk of making cost claims that don’t hold in the general case. Especially when the comparison examples are not UK projects. I certainly red “only about 30% lower than a much higher capacity rail tramway” as a general statement even if it wasn’t so intended. Is there an actual light rail alternative for Burnaby Mountain?
I’m also not convinced that utilities explain all of the high UK costs, although they probably do play a significant part, but this would be a separate discussion 🙂
@Lauri Kangas
There has been no mention that I’m aware of for a light rail alternative to connect to Burnaby Mountain. The grades on the slope would likely require a longer route than the bus currently takes, adding significantly to the cost.
Local transit advocates have mused that a trolleybus line could be built to replace the diesel buses, as the former have greater hill climbing ability. However not being near Vancouver’s existing trolleybus garages and wires would require a new bus garage and transformer stations, a significant expense.
There is another Parisien cable car, in Clichy, but it is only for gravel and will be dismantled once the foundation digging is complete. It replaces 80 heavy trucks a day and their attendant noise and pollution.
A conceptual video of a cable car above an urban boulevard – like an elevated train line but with suspended gondolas instead. Whilst this might be accessible in the midst of office buildings, there would be a huge uproar would such a line be proposed along a street of apartments and condos – the gondola passengers would be able to see directly into people’s rooms. This is the primary reason a number of proposed urban cable car lines were rejected. And any window obscuring technology would have to be activated for most, if not all of the route, denying the passengers some of the thrill of being elevated.
Some teething problems, and a two week shut down for annual maintenance during France’s annual August (unofficial) month long holiday, but the Toulouse Teleo cable car has been operating since May 2022.