Gondolas and aerial tramways in cities

amor de cosmos · #1 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 8:27 PM**

I found a thing in the Toronto Star about this. Could it work? It could be a bit like the rooftop-to-rooftop helicopter system in Sao Paulo, except cheaper & maybe(?) safer

Quote:

Gondolas, he says, can cross water or 400-series highways without the expense of bridges. They can run less frequently over low-density areas and more often in highly populated districts. They can be beautiful, don't take up much more space than a telephone pole or light standard, require limited land and don't conflict with traffic.

Quote:

"I would love to see a top-supported system (gondolas) run along the Don Valley or Humber Valley," said Dale.

"There's a system in Asia where one of the stations is located in a skyscraper. The technology is incredibly flexible."

That guy Steve Dale also has a blog called the Gondola Project, which has more details.

ue · #2 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 8:36 PM**

Woah that looks pretty awesome! The only urban gondola I know of is Pittsburgh (although is that really gondola...I don't know) and Sao Paolo.

Edmonton had a plan for something like Pittsburgh's to bring people from the bottom of the river valley to the top (downtown), I think funding was approved, but we haven't heard anything since.

Bootstrap Bill · #3 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 8:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

Woah that looks pretty awesome! The only urban gondola I know of is Pittsburgh (although is that really gondola...I don't know) and Sao Paolo.

Edmonton had a plan for something like Pittsburgh's to bring people from the bottom of the river valley to the top (downtown), I think funding was approved, but we haven't heard anything since.

Portland Oregon has their aerial tram - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Aerial_Tram

Bootstrap Bill · #4 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 8:39 PM**

How does the cost per mile compare with streetcar or light rail systems?

ue · #5 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 8:47 PM**

^Oh right...I knew that one too...and I even saw that one in person...can't believe I forgot it.

blockski · #6 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 9:00 PM**

Remember, Aerial Trams and Gondolas are not the same thing.

amor de cosmos · #7 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 5:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by blockski

Remember, Aerial Trams and Gondolas are not the same thing.

i didn't know there was a difference. i fixed the op but i don't think it will show up in the title in the transportation forum

blockski · #8 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 4:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by amor de cosmos

i didn't know there was a difference. i fixed the op but i don't think it will show up in the title in the transportation forum

Well, it's not like they're hugely different, but they are different. For gondolas, the cable itself is moving, and the cabs grip the cable to move. For Trams, the cars move along fixed cables as if they were rails, pulled by a third cable.

That's why trams are usually much bigger (as you have different cables for movement and support). Trams can also scale more impressive terrain and maintain much longer distances between towers, which is why they're chosen for some applications over gondolas. The Portland tram, for example, has only one tower to cover a horizontal distance of 3,000+ feet. This also allows for scaling some impressive heights as well.

twoNeurons · #9 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by blockski

Well, it's not like they're hugely different, but they are different. For gondolas, the cable itself is moving, and the cabs grip the cable to move. For Trams, the cars move along fixed cables as if they were rails, pulled by a third cable.

That's why trams are usually much bigger (as you have different cables for movement and support). Trams can also scale more impressive terrain and maintain much longer distances between towers, which is why they're chosen for some applications over gondolas. The Portland tram, for example, has only one tower to cover a horizontal distance of 3,000+ feet. This also allows for scaling some impressive heights as well.

Tri-cable gondolas are a mix of the two technologies. They offer two stationary support wires and a moving wire gripped by the gondola car.

brickell · #10 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 9:08 PM**

I've always thought something like this would work well in Miami for Mainland to South Beach transit.

With individual cars, I'd imagine that maintenance is a pain. Plus, no matter how pretty you make it, somebody's going to complain about views being blocked and it being an eyesore.

Jasonhouse · #11 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 9:45 PM**

^Same thing here for Clearwater Beach... I wonder if such a system would work some place like the USF main campus?

blockski · #12 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 10:02 PM**

Anyone who's been skiing should be familiar with the technology.

A couple of things -

These work best for point to point transport - like ski lifts, from base to summit.

Turning can be done, but not easily - both are best run in a straight line (again, as you'd find for most ski lifts).

Gondolas have more capacity with many more smaller capacity cars, while trams can scale much more impressive terrain with a far greater distance between towers - but gondolas do not function like that yellow-skied image in the OP - they only have one cable and would most certainly have more towers in a distance that large.

Reading the article, it would seem like the guy has never been skiing. Honestly, spend a couple days skiing and you'd learn first hand about how cable chairlifts operate, what their limitations are, etc.

novawolverine · #13 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 10:14 PM**

Baltimore was talking about putting one of these up IIRC.

M.K. · #14 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 10:27 PM**

To not solve the slams problems in Rio de Janeiro, they made this solution for the so called inhabitants there, see:

http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Mundo/f...058-FMM,00.jpg

Medellin Colombia has similar solutions of transportation...

http://josegenao.files.wordpress.com...e-medellin.jpg

electricron · #15 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 12:36 AM**

I can see these working best in rough terrain with steep grades.
I just don't think they're efficient in fairly level areas...

Okstate · #16 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 2:10 AM**

I doubt we'll make a separate thread for aerial trams anytime soon so here's a picture of a new aerial tram. There has been some talk of additional "lines" here in Portland though right now they're just a pipe dream.

Source: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3645/...f7dd28f37c.jpg

Jasonhouse · #17 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 4:29 PM**

How fast do these things go? How many people per hour can they carry? I'm having trouble finding the 'specs' for such systems.

blockski · #18 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

How fast do these things go? How many people per hour can they carry? I'm having trouble finding the 'specs' for such systems.

Well, it all depends on the specific technology and the application.

The usual rule of thumb max capacity for a quad chairlift is 2,400 uphill skiers per hour. So, that's 2,400 people per hour in one direction. Gondolas (on the account of having a larger capacity cabin - 6 to 8 passengers, but often with slightly larger gaps between cars) can pus 3,000 skiers per hour.

A big Aerial Tramway, such as the new one at Jackson Hole, has a much lower capacity but can scale much more challenging terrain and offers a much longer ride - base to summit, 2+ miles in distance and 4,300 feet of vertical - in just 9 minutes. Still, with 9 minute headways on a double-jigback tram like that with two 100 passenger cars, your uphill capacity is just 650 skiers per hour.

As far as urban applications for aerial trams and gondolas, I'd think you'd need a challenge that matches the technology. What these kind of systems have in terms of efficiency is lost with simplicity - there's a reason ski lifts go from bottom to top with no stops in between - because stops are complicated, as are turns.

That's not to say it can't be done, as there are lots of cable propelled people movers and whatnot - but almost all are limited to relatively simple operations, which in turn can maximize the advantages of the technology's simplicity (full automation, reliability, etc).

emathias · #19 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 10:14 PM**

Barcelona has a couple of these. There's the Telefèric de Montjuïc and another one across the harbor from Miramar to Jaume I to St. Sebasia.

And don't forget New York's Roosevelt Island tram.

And then there's the Wankbahn in Bavaria, which inspired this comic.

Steven Dale · #20 Posted **Jan 2, 2010, 6:02 PM**

Hey all,

I'm the guy who the Toronto Star interviewed for this piece. One of the reasons I started www.gondolaproject.com was to actually help people learn about the technology. A quick glance around the internet will show you that there's virtually no publicly accessible research available on the topic of urban gondolas and cable propelled transit (CPT).

I started working with the technology three years ago, and I've been touring systems around the world and developing a body of research on the matter. I'll continue touring installations for the next year as well.

It would be impossible to address everyone's concerns in one post, but just let me say this: Cable is remarkably flexible, safe, fast and cheap. I was stunned myself to learn these things, but they're a fact. If anyone has any specific questions about the tech, you can ask me here or you could head on over to www.gondolaproject.com and submit questions in the comments section.

One thing I'm trying to do with the site is not just have me pontificating about the virtues of the technology. Instead, I'd really love to see people get involved and excited about the technology. Skeptics are incredibly welcome.

I'm really excited to see this topic generate the interest that it did.