Urban cable cars are more widespread than you’d think – and they go back long before the celebrated South American lines. And like any decent, flexible public transport mode, they have evolved and improved. Nowadays, many cities are making cable cars an integral part of public transport networks. We look at the evolution of urban cable cars, and how they are a clean, simple, and inexpensive public transport option.

Cable cars were initially constructed by private companies for a singular transport purpose, to scale a mountain for tourists, or to move people around a World’s Fair. As such, they had little physical and no fare integration with cities’ public transport networks. But it was actually the French who initiated the urban cable car concept.

The Urban Cable Car Usability Test

In The Incredible Lightness of Cable Cars (Part 1), we posited a simple test to help determine the urban public transport usability of current and proposed cable car lines. With slightly refined wording, it states that if a cable car line:

1. Connects two or more residential neighbourhoods, and/or educational, hospital or business districts,
2. Has at least one of its station close to a well used public transport station or stop, and
3. The cable car is fare integrated with a city’s transit system,

then it is likely a truly useful urban transport link.

Scores in each of the above criteria are rated between 0.0 and 1.0, for an overall line urban usability score range between 0.0 and 3.0.  A simple, but effective metric.

In this article, we apply this Test to a number of cableways. Lines that are obviously tourist or recreationally focused have not been evaluated. We begin by looking at the evolution of urban gondolas.

Algers, Algeria – Téléphérique d’El Madania (1956, rebuilt 2008)

This two station téléphérique, constructed in 1956 by the colonial French administration, scales the El Madania plateau to link two neighbourhoods 83m above one another together.

Caption:

1. Connects the city centre lower town with a business district atop the El Madania plateau – 1.0
2. No connection to any Métro or rail station – 0.0
3. There is a combined monthly pass available that includes the téléphérique, tramway, Metro, and bus, but otherwise the téléphérique is a standalone fare, like the bus and tram – 0.25

Urban usability score: 1.25

This gondola long predated the city’s Métro construction, so it can be excused for not having a direct connection. Furthermore, the fact that this gondola was rebuilt is testament to its urban transport utility.

A note on cableway notation

Cable cars are also know as gondolas, and cableways. They have many, and sometimes a variable number of, cabins, so arrive on the order of minutes.

An aerial tramway has two fixed cabins, typically much larger but less frequent than gondolas.

New York City – Roosevelt Island Tram (1976, rebuilt 2010)

Initially developed to provide quick transportation to midtown Manhattan before the Roosevelt Island subway station opened, this aerial tram has been a surprising urban transport success. And it has maintained its ridership even after the subway station opened.

1. Connects the Roosevelt Island residential neighbourhood with midtown Manhattan – 1.0
2. Two block (200m) walking connexion to Roosevelt Island station on the F line, and a similar distance from Lexington/59 Street subway station in Manhattan – 0.5
3. The aerial tram fare is integrated with the MTA transit system, equivalent to a bus ride – 0.7

Urban usability score: 2.2

Algers, Algeria – Téléphérique du Mémorial (1987)

This two station téléphérique (the French term for cable car) scales 75m up El Madania plateau 700m east-southeast of the Téléphérique d’El Madania (qv).

1. Connects the Musée des Beaux-Arts, the Pasteur Institute, National Library, and the southern edge of downtown with the enormous Monument aux Martyrs, large shopping centre, and business district atop El Madania – 1.0
2. Close connection to the Parc d’Essais Métro station – 1.0
3. There is a combined monthly pass available that includes the téléphérique, tramway,  Metro, and bus, but otherwise the téléphérique is a standalone fare, like the bus and tram – 0.25

Urban usability score: 2.25

Algers has also constructed additional télécabines (what Algeria calls smaller cabin téléphériques) in hilly suburban neighbourhoods.

Istanbul, Turkey – Taskisla-MaçkaTeleferik TF1 (1993)

Istanbul is a massive city that spans two continents. It is both historic and modern, the latter exemplified by the seven Metro lines, five tram lines, and one commuter rail line, three funiculars, and two gondola (teleferik) lines in operation, all physically and fare integrated together under Metro Istanbul. The agency has a further six Metro lines and one funicular under construction.

The Taskisla-Maçka TF1 Teleferik line was built by Metro Istanbul to ease road congestion around Maçka Park near the centre city. This cableway was one of the first constructed by a city transport agency, so it is fully fare integrated with the city’s transport network to maximise passenger mobility and network usefulness.

1. Connects ITU Maçka Campus with its satellite campus, and commercial districts, across a downtown park with a ravine – 0.75
2. Not close to a Metro station – 0.0
3. Operated by Metro Istanbul and fully fare integrated – 1.0

Urban usability score: 1.75

Medellin Columbia – Metrocables (2004)

Medellin Colombia’s first line in 2004 took these previous gondola concepts and expanded them to build public transport lines in their own right. Perfect for the city’s poor neighbourhoods in the foothills that surround the city, residents could now cover in 25 minutes what previously took up to two and a half-hours in small private buses. The city constructed two Metrocables 2 km lines, Lines K (in 2004) and J (in 2008) each have three stations and a direct Metro connection: 

1. Each line connects poorer barrios together and to a busy district with a Metro station – 1.0
2. Connects directly to a Metro station – 1.0
3. Operated by Metro and is fully fare integrated – 1.0

Urban usability score: a perfect 3.0

These Metrocables in turn inspired Caracas, Venezuela and La Paz, Bolivia to construct their own urban cable car lines a few years later.

Portland, Oregon – Aerial Tram (2007)

Already introduced in Gondolas Part 1, we proceed to its scoring:

1. Connects the South Waterfront District and campus with the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) – 1.0
2. Connects directly with the Portland Streetcar, and a bike share hub – 1.0
3. OHSU personnel and transit pass holders ride free – 0.5

Urban usability score: 2.5

Caracas, Venezuela – Metrocable (2010)

Venezuela is a major oil producer and has a domestic policy to subsidise petrol, which provides its citizens with the cheapest gasoline on the planet. As a result, the roads of Caracas are a traffic nightmare. Inspired by Medellin, Caracas built a 5-station cable car. As the line was also conceived as part of a larger social redevelopment project, its stations were designed to include social spaces, markets, clinics, and children’s nurseries.

1. Links some of the city’s poorest and most disadvantaged neighbourhoods to the Metro – 1.0
2. Passengers easily transfer between the Metrocable and Parque Central Metro station – 1.0
3. The Metrocable is fully fare integrated with the Metro network – 1.0

Urban usability score: a perfect 3.0

Teleférico do Complexo do Alemão, Rio De Janeiro (2011-2016)

This six station, 3.5 km system was constructed as part of the Brazilian infrastructure development plan before the 2016 Summer Olympics.

1. It connects six residential neighbourhoods together – 1.0
2. It also connects the residents to the Metro network– 1.0
3. Local residents can apply for a pass which grants them two free trips per day. But there is no fare integration with the rail network – 0.5

Urban usability score: 2.5

Unfortunately, this line was shut down a month after the Olympics due to a lack of funds. It also became evident that the city did not consult with locals on the line’s design, nor did the city learn from Medellin or Caracas. As a result, Rio’s ropeway ridership had been a third of what was expected. However, this was not the fault of the mode, the line functioned well over its brief life. Without a compelling reason to reopen the line, however, its future prospects are dim.

London’s Emirates Air Line (2012)

Much has been said about this folly’s uselessness, but let’s look at its Urban Cable Car Usability Test numbers:

1. It does not connect any residential, business, educational, or hospital neighbourhood – 0.0
2. Dangleway stations are 400m from North Greenwich Tube station, and 300m from Royal Victoria DLR station. But this line is a connection with little demand, that can be made with a slightly longer Tube and DLR journey – 0.2
3. Dangleway journeys are a separate fare, not included in the TfL fare scheme – 0.0

Urban usability score: a really lousy 0.2

This score reflects the fact that the line lost its sole regular commuter. The Before Times ridership in 2019 was between 13,000 (winter) to 43,000 (summer peak) per week, or between about 2,000 and 6,000 riders per day.

Unfortunately this line spawned a copycat Olympic Games line in Japan, which we will get to shortly.

La Paz, Bolivia – Mi Teleferico (2014)

La Paz’s Mi Teleférico network has taken the cable car concept to its furthest extent to date, as the first public transport system to use cable cars as its main mode of transportation. The 11 lines comprise 40 stations and are linked by 1,729 cabins over almost 45 route miles, and it is the largest urban cable car network in the world. The network transported an estimated 350,000 passengers per weekday (pre-Covid).

1. Links El Alto and La Paz, and many other neighbourhoods, together – 1.0
2. Numerous interchange stations allow passengers easily transfer between lines – 1.0
3. The cable car network is the backbone of the public transport network – 1.0

Urban usability score: a perfect 3.0

Some of the cable car lines even have WiFi powered by solar panels on the cabin roofs. Plans are to construct another 5 lines by 2030.

Ankara, Turkey Yenimahalle Teleferik (2014)

This cableway was built by the Turkish capital’s transport authority to relieve Ankara’s traffic, and prevent adding any additional burden on the roads, running as many as 106 cabins over the 3.3km four stop line. It opened as part of the Turkish wave of urban teleferiks to reduce the smothering traffic and extend public transport mobility to hard to reach locations.

1. The cable car connects four high density neighbourhoods – 1.0
2. It connects directly with Yenimahalle Metro station without transferring passengers having to exit the metro – 1.0
3. This cable car line does not have a fare – 1.0

Urban usability score: a perfect 3.0.

Brest Téléphérique (2016)

As mentioned in Gondolas Part 1, this two cabin aerial tram harnesses the energy of the descending cabins by super-capacitors to store electrical energy (green). Only a small amount of ERDF national grid electricity is required (red). Note that the cabins pass one about the other near the pylon.

1. The aerial tram links the banks of La Penfeld river near the port and city centre – 1.0
2. One of the stations is near Chateau station on the city’s tram line – 1.0
3. The cableway is fully fare integrated with the city’s transit network – 1.0

Urban usability score: a perfect 3.0

Mexico City – Mexicable (2016)

Mexico City followed it’s more southerly brethren and opened a seven station, 4.7km gondola line.

1. It links seven poor communities – 0.8
2. There is a free shuttle bus between Mexicable and a Metro station – 0.5
3. Mexicable is a separate fare from the Metro – 0.0

Urban usability score: 1.3

Not a perfect urban gondola line, but it proved the concept in Mexico and led to the Cablebús concept:

Mexico City Cablebús lines (2021)

Building on the success of Mexicable, Mexico City launched the Cablebús project in 2019 to build 34 km of cable cars routes by 2021. Cablebús Lines 1 and 2 are expected to open in March 2021, with Line 3 expected to open in 2022. A fourth line is being studied. They will all connect to metro stations, and will have six to seven stops.

1. They will link numerous poor neighbourhoods together – 1.0
2. They will connect directly with a Metro station – 1.0
3. Cablebús iines will be fully fare integrated with the city’s transit network – 1.0

Urban usability score: 3.0

Mexico City has obviously learnt from the fare isolation of the Metrocable line. 

Toulouse Téléphérique (2021)

Already introduced in Gondolas Part 1, we proceed to its scoring:

1. The Téléotéléphérique will connect three major traffic generators, l’Oncopole University Cancer Institute, l’HôpitalRangueil, and the Université Paul Sabatier – 1.0
2. It will directly connect with the Métro station at Université Paul Sabatier – 1.0
3. The téléphérique will be fully fare integrated with the city’s transit network – 1.0

Urban usability score: a perfect 3.0

Yokohama Air Cabin, Japan (2021)

Japan’s first permanent urban gondola will directly connect Japan Rail’s (JR) Sakuragicho station and the Minato Mirai 21 district comprising Shinko Pier and tourist attractions.  The main impetus for its construction is to provide transportation for the 2021 Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games that open in July, to open in April 2021. This 600m line is also claimed to be part of the city’s waterfront renovation master plan, being just south of downtown Yokohama:

(this scoring is only for the line indicated at centre – there are plans for a future line that traverses the northwest quadrant of the map above)

1. Links a main-line railway station to a tourist area – 0.0
2. The main-line station brings in riders from a wider network than Yokohama’s two line metro system – 0.2
3. The Air Cabin fare is separate from the JR and public transport networks – 0.0

Urban usability score: 0.2

Unfortunately, this line duplicates the dubious urban legacy of the other dockland cable car, London’s Emirates Air-Line. For a supposed urban renewal transportation line, the Air Cabin misses the obvious connection to downtown Yokohama (at the top of the map above). And the main-line railway connection is obviously to bring in visitors from other cities and regions, not to improve Yokohama’s urban public transport.

Burnaby Mountain Gondola, Vancouver, Canada (TBC)

Already introduced in Gondolas Part 1, we proceed to its scoring:

1. Will connect the busy all day Simon Fraser University campus and nearby Burnaby neighbourhood – 1.0
2. Will directly connect with a SkyTrain station, and two of the proposed options will interchange with two SkyTrain lines – 1.0
3. Full integration planned with the Translink fare scheme – 1.0

Urban usability score: a perfect 3.0

Marseille Téléphérique (On Hold)

Unfortunately, this useful line is currently on hold, pending local opposition.

1. It will connect the neighbourhoods without rapid transit around the Notre-Dame de la Garde Basilica with the Old Port, a ferry terminal, Old Town, and the city centre – 1.0
2. The Old Port téléphérique station will be close to the Vieux Port Métro station – 1.0
3. The fare integration situation with the city’s Métro, tram, and bus transit network is likely, given that this téléphérique is a city project – 1.0

Urban usability score: a perfect 3.0

Paris Créteil Téléval Câble A (2024)

Already introduced in Gondolas Part 1, we proceed to its scoring:

1. It will connect five Créteil neighbourhoods – 1.0
2. It will also connect directly with the Métro Line 8 Créteil – Pointe du Lac station – 1.0
3. The téléphérique will be fully fare integrated with the Île-de-France Mobilités public transport network – 1.0

Urban usability score: a perfect 3.0

Grenoble Téléphérique (TBC)

Already introduced in Gondolas Part 1, we proceed to its scoring:

1. It will link the northern university and scientific district with local neighbourhoods, crossing two rivers, railways, and a motorway – 1.0
2. It will directly connect with three tram lines – 1.0
3. The téléphérique will be fully fare integrated with the city’s public transport network – 1.0

Urban usability score: a perfect 3.0

Urban Usability Score trend

The following chart shows the trend of increasing urban usability of gondola lines over time (despite some cities that refuse to learn!):

Gondolas with all mod cons

The latest cable car cabin designs have also evolved to include modern conveniences expected in public transport vehicles – cabins monitored by video surveillance, with an audio communications system, and can be equipped with heated seats and WiFi. Some cabins are equipped with air conditioning, powered by batteries that quick charge upon entering stations.

Visual concerns

Western cities worry about the visual intrusion of gondolas on the urban landscape. Residents and land owners around a proposed line worry about what cabin passengers can see, but they are likely more worried about their property value. This helped scuttle the proposed Hamburg Elb-Seilbahn (across the Elb River) and Innsbruck Hungerburgbahn cable cars.

New ‘smart glass’ technologies, as implemented on the Brest gondola, automatically blurs the cabins’ glass panels when passing over houses, blocking visual intrusion.

But quieter than ambient noise

Since the cabins themselves do not house a motor, cableways are in most cases indistinguishable from ambient sounds, most notably traffic.

And low carbon emissions

With air pollution becoming even more critical to city dwellers’ health in the era of Covid, cableways also excel, as calculated by Herwig, 2013:

Medellin uses its Metrocable lines to sell its share of carbon emissions to other cities. This revenue Medellin then uses to reinvest in its transportation systems.

Most energy efficient public transport mode, per passenger

Cable car lines have a single, stationary motor that propels the whole system. This is efficient, and simple. There are other inherent efficiencies:

• The motor operates at a steady, efficient pace
• The cabins do not carry motors, fuel, wheels, suspensions, reinforced chassis and thus are light weight
• Cable cars have very low rolling resistance
• Descending gondolas help pulling up ascending gondolas

The specific energy consumption of selected public transport modes was calculated by Fickert, 2017 as follows:

Even with the Emirates Air thing’s super low ridership, it still turns a profit due to its low operating costs. And with the ability to add or remove cabins from operation, the increment cost of adding capacity is minimal.

Furthermore, operating a modern gondola line requires only a few staff members per station, to assist cabin boarding and alighting, oversee the system, and perform daily maintenance.

Taking the high road

In designing gondolas for urban contexts, there is still room for further improvements and lessons learnt, particularly in how to deal with ‘not above my back yard’ (NAMBY) resident complaints.

It is becoming evident to cities and public transport agencies that cable car lines are cost effective – low land take required, simple machinery, quick and simple construction, robust snowy and icy weather operation, close frequencies, and superior obstacle crossing capability.

Combined with the quick construction time, electric power, minimal guideway, cable cars are an elegant and efficient transport solution. A fine addition to the transport planner’s quiver of options.

Thanks to Snowy for the assistance.