Practice of Urban Aerial Ropeways: Work Report No.1

Translated from German to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.
com
Practice of urban aerial ropeways

Work report no.1
July 2016
Authors
Max Reichenbach, Maike Puhe
Project
Aiming high in Baden-Württemberg: Feasibility,
opportunities and obstacles of urban aerial
cableways in Baden-Württemberg
KIT - The Research University in the Helmholtz Association

2
Project information
Project title: Aiming high in Baden-Württemberg: Feasibility, opportunities and
obstacles of urban aerial cableways in Baden-Württemberg
Funding of the project: Ministry of Transport Baden-Wuerttemberg

Hauptstätter Str. 67
70178 Stuttgart
Implementation of the project: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)

Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis
(ITAS) Institute for Transport (IfV)
Project leader: Maike Puhe (ITAS)

Karlsstrasse 11
76133 Karlsruhe
Processing of work report no.1: Max Reichenbach (ITAS) max.reichenbach@kit.edu

Maike Puhe (ITAS) maike.puhe@kit.edu
Title graphic: Max Reichenbach (ITAS)
Recommended citation style: Reichenbach, M. & Puhe, M. (2016). Practice of urban aerial ropeways.
Project "Aiming high in Baden-Württemberg: Feasibility, opportunities and
obstacles of urban aerial cableways in Baden-Württemberg", work report
No. 1. Karlsruhe: Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems
Analysis.
Classification in the project context
As a first step, the current practice of urban aerial ropeway systems is being examined in the “Up
high” project. The results of this first work phase are presented in this work report No. 1. The
following steps serve the in-depth investigation of potential cable car connections in Baden-
Württemberg cities as well as the creation of a guideline for practical actors. Independent work
reports are planned for the results of these further work phases.
3
summary
For a few years now, traffic experts and urban planners have been coming up with suggestions for aerial ropeways that, as an additional mobility
option, can make a contribution to more sustainable mobility in urban areas. What may be confusing at first glance - after all, aerial ropeways in this
country are mainly known from the mountain sports regions of the Alps - does not appear absurd on closer inspection. Aerial ropeways are
technically mature systems that, when appropriately designed, achieve high transport capacities that are suitable for city traffic. Up to a distance of
10 km, cable cars can be a sensible alternative to traditional means of transport such as bus, tram or underground. They are by no means a panacea
for inner-city traffic problems, these are often multi-layered and as a pure point-to-point connection, aerial cableways cannot solve any problems in
the area. However, aerial ropeways can overcome topographical obstacles or separating infrastructures, supplement weak public transport systems
or take on feeder functions. They promise a special experience value, as a continuous conveyor generate practically no waiting times and -
depending on the connection - can lead to enormous reductions in travel times. The cabins can easily be designed so that they are barrier-free and
allow bicycles to be taken along. They are economical in their use of space and contribute to lower CO complement weak public transport systems or
take on feeder functions. They promise a special experience value, as a continuous conveyor generate practically no waiting times and - depending
on the connection - can lead to enormous reductions in travel times. The cabins can easily be designed so that they are barrier-free and allow
bicycles to be taken along. They are economical in their use of space and contribute to lower CO complement weak public transport systems or take
on feeder functions. They promise a special experience value, as a continuous conveyor generate practically no waiting times and - depending on the
connection - can lead to enormous reductions in travel times. The cabins can easily be designed so that they are barrier-free and allow bicycles to be
taken along. They are economical in their use of space and contribute to lower CO2- and air pollutant emissions from the transport sector and
reduced noise pollution.
The present report takes a look at the previous practice of such aerial ropeways, explicitly
referring to aerial ropeways that operate in urban areas and fulfill tasks of the public
transport system. With this first work report, we approach the question of which resistance
and obstacles, especially in the planning process, have hindered the establishment of the
new means of transport so far. The number of project ideas in Germany has become larger
and more diverse in recent years, but most of these ideas have so far failed, were not
pursued further or are in a very early planning phase. For the transport companies as well
as for political decision-makers, cable cars are still a new means of transport, the planning of
which,
In order to identify opportunities and obstacles for the new use of the aerial ropeway in
urban areas, experts from (traffic) planning as well as the two market leaders among
ropeway manufacturers were interviewed. In addition, selected practical examples of
implemented, planned and rejected aerial cableway plans were analyzed, including a second
wave of interviews with practitioners on site.
The experts questioned are generally in agreement that the use of aerial ropeways in public
transport has potential. Established routines and procedures in traffic planning, however,
stand in the way of its previous use. Most cities already have a broad repertoire of mobility
options that practitioners initially see as sufficient to cope with the traffic situation. The
urban integration of aerial ropeways is an additional factor that practitioners perceive as a
great uncertainty. Another great difficulty arises from the fact that aerial cableway projects
have so far often been developed without being included in other transport planning; thus
the projects lack an important line of argument.
summary 4th
The ropeway manufacturers naturally see a promising market in urban aerial ropeways. You are close
to the project proposals that have become more common in recent years. Due to the current exotic
status, the companies are often asked for their expertise in planning processes. The two market
leaders are aware, however, that the establishment of the aerial cableway as an urban means of
transport is a complex process with the participation of many actors, in which they themselves still
have to learn.
Among the many aerial ropeway projects that have already emerged in Germany, the examples of Koblenz, Wuppertal and Cologne are examined in detail in this report. In Koblenz, Germany's
only modern, high-performance aerial cableway in urban areas has crossed the Rhine since the 2011 Federal Horticultural Show. However, the development was driven by the external occasion
of the Federal Garden Show, the planning was not optimized for integration into the public transport network. This fact continues to have an effect today when it comes to a stronger integration
of the cable car into public transport in Koblenz, which does not seem realistic for the near future. In Wuppertal, the planning of a cable car from the main train station to the university is part of
a vision for Wuppertal's urban development in the coming years. The project is currently being intensively examined and discussed controversially in public. The connection is to become part of
the public transport network; the city also hopes to establish a positive standard for extensive public participation as the project progresses. Finally, in 2009 a feasibility study in Cologne looked
for ways to connect the main train station and the Messe / Deutz train station more closely to a common train station with two terminals. A cable car turned out to be a suitable solution, but due
to a lack of political initiative and partly in anticipation of expected conflicts, the project was soon no longer pursued. The city also hopes to establish a positive standard for extensive public
participation as the project progresses. Finally, in 2009 a feasibility study in Cologne looked for ways to connect the main train station and the Messe / Deutz train station more closely to a
common train station with two terminals. A cable car turned out to be a suitable solution, but due to a lack of political initiative and partly in anticipation of expected conflicts, the project was
soon no longer pursued. The city also hopes to establish a positive standard for extensive public participation as the project progresses. Finally, in 2009 a feasibility study in Cologne looked for
ways to connect the main train station and the Messe / Deutz train station more closely to a common train station with two terminals. A cable car turned out to be a suitable solution, but due to
a lack of political initiative and partly in anticipation of expected conflicts, the project was soon no longer pursued. to connect the main train station and the Messe / Deutz train station more
closely to one common train station with two terminals. A cable car turned out to be a suitable solution, but due to a lack of political initiative and partly in anticipation of expected conflicts, the
project was soon no longer pursued. to connect the main train station and the Messe / Deutz train station more closely to one common train station with two terminals. A cable car turned out to
be a suitable solution, but due to a lack of political initiative and partly in anticipation of expected conflicts, the project was soon no longer pursued.
The results from the expert interviews, in connection with the experiences from the practical
examples presented in the report, provide a comprehensive picture of the opportunities and
potentials that are seen for urban cable cars in Germany. But they also clearly show where
the limits, difficulties and challenges for concrete plans and projects lie. It is true that some
of these challenges also arise with the diffusion of other innovations in public transport.
However, there are also some uncertainties with cable car projects that do not exist in this
combination with other projects: the use of the 3rd level and the associated legal framework
for dealing with private property, the media coverage that is difficult to assess and the
possible resistance of the population, the pronounced heterogeneity of the actors involved
and, finally, the lack of experience both with external funding opportunities and with various
operator models. The (previous) lack of suitable reference cases plays an important role
here.
The results from this report form the working basis for examining possible applications for
urban cable cars in Baden-Württemberg in the following work phases and for assessing the
potential of the new means of transport for this region.
5
table of contents
1 Introduction ............................................... .................................................. ....................... 6
2. The aerial cableway in urban areas ........................................... ....................................... 7
2.1. Properties of aerial ropeways ............................................... ............................................... 7
2.2. Definition of 'urban' cable cars ............................................. ............................................... 9
2.3. Areas of application for urban aerial cableways ............................................... ................................... 10
2.4. The cable car in the actor landscape of German public transport .......................................... ........ 12
2.5. The legal framework for urban cable cars ............................................ ...................... 14
3. Methodical approach .............................................. .................................................. 16
4. Expert assessments of urban aerial ropeways ............................................ ......... 20

4.1. The planning perspective ............................................... .................................................. ..... 20
4.2. The perspective of the cable car manufacturers .............................................. ....................................... 26
5. Practical examples ............................................... .................................................. ............. 29
5.1. Practical examples examined in detail ............................................... ...................................... 31
5.1.1. Koblenz cable car (in operation) ............................................ ........................................... 31

5.1.2. Cable car Wuppertal (ongoing planning) ............................................ ........................... 37
5.1.3. Cable car Cologne (planning not pursued further) ........................................... .................... 43
5.2. Further practical examples ................................................ .................................................. .......... 47
5.2.1. Künzelsau mountain railway (in operation) ............................................ ................................... 47
5.2.2. IGA cable car Berlin (under construction) .......................................... ............................................... 48
5.2.3. Konstanz cable car (ongoing planning) ............................................ ............................. 51
5.2.4. Cable car proposals Zurich (ongoing planning) ............................................ ................. 52

5.2.5. Elbseilbahn Hamburg (planning discarded) ............................................ ...................... 55
5.2.6. Ulm cable car (planning discarded) ............................................ ................................... 58
5.2.7. Trier cable car (planning discarded) ............................................ .................................. 60
5.3. Other projects not considered in Germany ............................................ ..................... 63
6. Conclusion ............................................... .................................................. ............................. 64
7. Outlook ............................................... .................................................. ........................ 67
Interview directory ................................................. .................................................. ....... 69

List of figures ................................................. .................................................. .... 70
List of tables ................................................. .................................................. ........ 71
List of sources ................................................. .................................................. .......... 72
6th
1 Introduction
A modern, sustainability-oriented transport policy is the declared goal of the state of Baden-
Württemberg. The goals of the state government emphasize the great importance of mobility for
people's lives, but also take into account the negative effects of traffic (Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen
Baden-Württemberg & CDU Baden-Württemberg, 2016). Important elements of state transport
policy are therefore concepts for efficient, affordable and convenient cross-mode mobility,
economical use of space and reduced environmental pollution from traffic. The goals also
include the promotion of the environmental network's means of transport.
The expansion of the capacities of public transport (PT) in the conventional way, however,
often meets with great resistance; these can e.g. B. be of a financial, structural or political
nature. Against this background, aerial cableways have also been increasingly discussed for
several years as an option to relieve the traffic networks on the ground by adding a new
level. In certain problem situations, aerial ropeways can take on an important connection
function and, for example, overcome topographical obstacles or supplement weak public
transport systems (see Chapter 2). Cable cars are already being used in numerous cities
around the world, they are space-saving and comparatively inexpensive to construct and
operate with a very high level of performance.
This work report is devoted to the question of why that is so. Aerial ropeways are technically
mature, but establishing them in urban areas requires far more than the technical solution
to a traffic problem. We understand this process as a social process in which the interests,
goals and ideas of a large number of stakeholders play a decisive role. The focus of the
investigation lies in the analysis of these partly heterogeneous opinions. The selected
research approach (see Chapter 3) investigates whether the routines and ideas of the
established actors in public transport generally stand in the way of innovative solutions or
whether cable cars are actually less suitable for local problems due to their specific traffic or
urban development properties.
Looking beyond the technical potential of the aerial cableway means of transport opens up
a new perspective, which, when taken into account, allows a meaningful assessment of the
possible applications. Only on this basis can recommendations be drawn up on how to deal
with the new means of transport, especially in (political) decision-making processes and at
the various planning levels.
The research is therefore exploratory. On the one hand, it uses a series of expert interviews on
(traffic) planning and with cable car manufacturers to identify specific difficulties in previous urban
cable car projects (see Chapter 4). Furthermore, a selection of these previous (partly rejected) projects
in Germany is presented in more detail (see Chapter 5). For this purpose, in addition to the analysis of
press articles and advice papers, a second series of guideline-based interviews was conducted with
relevant practitioners on site. The focus of the consideration is always on the underlying planning
processes and the roles of important actors involved in the course of the project.
7th
2. The aerial cableway in urban areas

This chapter first briefly introduces the general characteristics of the aerial cableway as a means of
transport. Subsequently, suitable application possibilities in urban space are presented. The chapter closes
with a classification of the aerial ropeway as a means of transport in the landscape of actors in German
public transport and a brief description of the legal framework.
2.1. Properties of aerial ropeways

Cable cars are a means of transport from a whole group of means of transport that use
(wire) ropes to drive or drive and guide the vehicles. This also includes funiculars, people
movers (depending on the drive system) and drag lifts (Weidmann, 2013). However, these
are not considered further in this report. In turn, there is a whole range of types and system
configurations among the aerial ropeways, each with different technical properties.
However, the different techniques used are basically known and established; they are used
on a large scale in the existing cable cars in mountains and especially in skiing regions
(Alshalalfah, Shalaby, Dale & Othman, 2012).
Aerial tramway (single lane)
Aerial tramway (synchronous)
Aerial tramway (independent)
Group orbit
Orbit (detachable)
Fig. 2-1: Basic types of aerial ropeways

Source: own illustration, partly based on Weidmann (2013)
The basic types of aerial ropeways differ in the number of ropes used and their tasks as well
as in the mode of operation (for more detailed information see Clément-Werny & Schneider,
2012; Liedl, 1999; Sedivy, 2012; Weidmann, 2013). When it comes to ropes, it is important to
distinguish between the load-bearing function and the drive function; these two functions
can be taken over by the same ropes or split between different ropes for
2. The aerial cableway in urban areas 8th
Several ropes can be used for the same function. However, these differences are less
relevant to the present report. On the other hand, the different types of operation are
relevant, in which a distinction is made between shuttle and circulating operation (Fig. 2-1).
In shuttle operation, individual large cabins with passenger capacities of up to 200 people
operate (Monheim, Muschwitz, Auer & Philippi, 2010). These usually drive in both opposite
directions at the same time and meet in the middle of the route, but single-lane operation of
individual cabins or independent operation of cabins operating in parallel is also possible. In
the shuttle service there is often a fixed timetable with fixed departure times, which can be
condensed if necessary.
However, orbits are particularly relevant for city traffic (see following sections). Here, a large
number of smaller cabins run continuously on one or more wire ropes. In the stations, the
cabins are usually uncoupled from the rope for getting on and off, diverted and sent back
on the route. Here, too, there are special forms, but mostly the cabins run at regular
intervals as a 'continuous conveyor'. The waiting times are short because departures can be
offered at a frequency of up to two cabins per minute. Cabs can also be completely taken
out of circulation, thereby and the speed of travel can be used to regulate the transport
performance. An important property of orbits is that intermediate stations are also possible
at which changes of direction are also possible.
Fig. 2-2: Schematic sketch of possible station configurations for a circulating cable car
The figure shows various ways in which intermediate stations can be used in a circulating cable car.
Source: Monheim et al. (2010, p. 28)
As the most modern system, three-cable circulating ropeways can carry up to 9,000
passengers per hour and direction if appropriately designed (Alshalalfah et al., 2012). Such
capacities already correspond to those that can also be reached by tram systems, and
operation can also be automated and unaccompanied (Potier, 2011).
The infrastructure on the ground required for a cable car is limited to individual masts and
two (or, if required, several) stations, in one of which the maintenance facilities can also be
accommodated. This keeps the construction and operation of aerial ropeways comparatively
inexpensive (Alshalalfah et al., 2012). The drive is stationary by
2. The aerial cableway in urban areas 9
Electric motors, the correspondingly unpowered cabins, have a low dead weight and run with little
friction on the suspension cables, so that energy consumption is low (Bergerhoff & Perschon, 2012).
Cable cars are considered to be a very safe and reliable means of transport, with which there are
hardly any accidents or operational disruptions (Rudolph, 2009). Stations and cabins can be designed
to be barrier-free without any special effort.
The routing of aerial cableways is basically limited to straight connections, at least on the
individual sections between the stations. By means of more complex support and chassis
constructions, however, slight distractions of up to five degrees on supports on the route
are now possible (Schweiger, 2015). However, the route must be carefully planned and will
be difficult to adjust later, which also applies to other parameters such as the maximum
transport capacity (Potier, 2011). Regular service interruptions are required for maintenance
work (Rudolph, 2009), but these can be reduced by suitable technical design (e.g. redundant
parts of the drive).
2.2. Definition of 'urban' cable cars

Since aerial ropeways are technically an established means of transport and this report is intended to be
about suitability as an urban means of transport, it is necessary to define what exactly is meant here by
'urban aerial ropeways'. Important information can be found in the literature:
“First of all, it should be mentioned that there is no legal definition for the term urban
cable cars. In professional circles, it is understood to mean cable cars that are located
in urban areas on the one hand and are used for local public transport on the other.[
...]There are significant differences between urban ropeways and other types of
ropeway in terms of availability and operating time. The availability required by
urban cable cars is usually around 99.5%. The operating times are, for example, 20
hours a day, 365 days a year "(Nejez, 2009, p. 9)
“In the following, urban cable cars only mean cable cars that permanently supplement
the local public transport system of a city in order to cope with the demand for transport.
For this reason, there are no systems that are only planned and built for certain events
(for example trade fairs or garden shows) and those that are primarily used for tourism. "(
Pajares & Priester, 2015, p. 45)
In the following, we will closely follow these definitions and deal with the following systems:
Urban aerial ropeways are those aerial ropeways that run in urban areas and
perform tasks in the public transport system.
Note on the use of the term
In this report, the abbreviation “cable cars” always means “aerial cableways”. If this is not
the case, this is expressly pointed out in the text.
2.3. Areas of application for urban aerial cableways
Cable cars were presented in Section 2.1 as a special means of transport which, based on its
technical system properties - like other means of transport - is better for some purposes and
less suitable for others. In Europe today, a large proportion of the existing cable cars are
used in winter sports areas; they are accordingly associated with mountainous regions and
with overcoming topographical obstacles. Those urban, densely populated areas
(corresponding to the spatial categories 'agglomerations' and 'peripheral zones around the
agglomerations' from the state development plan (Ministry of Economic Affairs Baden-
Württemberg, 2002)) that are particularly suitable for efficient public transport connections
are in Baden-Württemberg partly in the low mountain range,
In the urban area, there are other problem areas in which cable cars become an interesting
option, primarily due to their other system characteristics, which can have advantages over
alternative means of transport:
● Overcoming topographical or structural hurdles in a short distance

The best-known use of cable cars is to develop areas that are difficult to access due to
topographical or structural obstacles. From a technical point of view, cable cars make it
possible to bypass almost any obstacle in a direct way. In urban areas, this concerns, for
example, overcoming rivers or developing urban areas on slopes, but also overcoming
infrastructures such as ports, tracks or wide roads (Bergerhoff & Perschon, 2012). The
advantage of cable cars here is usually that the obstacles can be easily flown over, while
alternative, ground-based means of transport would have to accept considerable
detours and thus longer travel times.
Most of the existing cable car systems go back to this problem, for example in Koblenz
(crossing the Rhine, see section 5.1.1), London (crossing the Thames) or La Paz (crossing
densely built-up, informal residential areas)
● Development of areas with occasionally high traffic volumes

Most urban areas have certain workplaces or visitor magnets. The corresponding
facilities are often the largest traffic generators in a region. Monheim et al. (2010)
differentiate between various such institutions: universities, hospitals, technology and
science parks, amusement parks, shopping and urban entertainment centers, sports
arenas, train stations, trade fair and exhibition grounds, industrial areas and business
parks or service clusters. Particularly during peak demand, there are often traffic
problems and parking space pressure in the vicinity of these areas (and, as a result,
competition for space). Cable cars can provide a connection to local public transport or
more remote large parking lots;
Both the Koblenz and the London cable cars can originally be traced back to this
problem. In both cases, a major tourist event with a high number of visitors was the
reason for the construction of the cable car (Federal Garden Show or Olympic Games). A
planned cable car in Cologne should connect both the trade fair and the Messe / Deutz
train station to the city center (see section 5.1.3), while the university in Ulm should be
connected (see section 5.2.6).
● Development of peripheral locations:

Many large-scale, extensive facilities such as research facilities, urban recreation areas,
exhibition grounds, airports or industrial parks are located in peripheral locations or
even outside of the conurbations, sometimes at a distance from efficient public
transport connections. These sites often offer sufficient open spaces for the route and
the mostly functional development reduces the requirements compared to city centers
that have evolved over time (Monheim et al., 2010).
In the case of the city of Künzelsau, on the other hand, it is a new development area with residential
development, which, however, is just as peripheral on a high plateau and is accessed by a funicular
railway (see section 5.2.1).
● Relief of existing public transport systems

Unlike in rural areas, public transport in many urban areas has reached its capacity limit
at peak hours, for example in the Stuttgart region (Ministry of Transport and
Infrastructure Baden-Württemberg, 2015). Urban ropeway systems can relieve the
existing public transport with comparatively little effort, for example if there are extreme
loads due to major events (e.g. football matches).
The cable car project from Trier found its way to the Trier city council due to the
congested transport links to the university (see section 5.2.7). Likewise, in the cities of
Wuppertal (see Section 5.1.2) and Konstanz (see Section 5.2.3), due to congested
transport networks, a cable car solution is being considered.
● Closing gaps in traffic

Public transport networks in large cities are often set up as radial or tangential networks
in which the traffic flows are directed towards the city center. The emergence of new
residential and / or workplace focal points in peripheral locations can lead to individual
tangential traffic relationships of similar intensity, that is, traffic flows are generated that
do not have to run through the city center at all. In such cases, tangential lines make
sense as a supplement to existing radial line networks, but they can often only be
operated economically with traditional public transport if there is a corresponding
number of passengers (Steierwald, Künne & Vogt, 2005). This often results in very
sketchy timetables on these connections. As a continuous conveyor, cable cars could be
an attractive alternative here,
The current proposals for cable car routes in Zurich serve not only to relieve existing public
transport lines but also explicitly to close gaps (see section 5.2.4).
Many of these problem areas cannot be clearly separated from one another, but are mutually
dependent, they often occur at the same time. So are z. B. University locations in the 1970s often
emerged in peripheral locations with poor connections to the public transport and cycling network. In
addition, they are often one of the biggest job focal points in these regions and thus an even bigger
traffic generator. Whether and how a cable car can represent a useful addition at a given point,
however, has to be decided taking into account the initial situation regarding the settlement
structure, traffic structure and topographical situation (Monheim et al., 2010).
Although the areas of application outlined are diverse and problems of this kind can be
found in most of the densely populated areas in Baden-Württemberg, cable cars are by no
means a 'panacea' per se for this type of traffic problem. Already the authorization to fly
over especially built-up properties is a major challenge in the planning process, because"
Property owners have a high priority [in Central Europe] "(Rümmele, 2015). The linear
routing also only allows a straight route, apart from cost-intensive special constructions,
minor diversions or a transfer process, cable cars are not curved (Pajares & Priester, 2015;
Schweiger, 2015), they cannot replace the network effectiveness of buses and trains
(Monheim et al., 2010). In order to exploit the full potential of urban cable cars, only a few
stops can be operated (Weidmann, 2013). In urban areas, cable cars are always dependent
on the addition of other elements of public transport (Monheim et al., 2010).
2.4. The aerial cableway in the actor landscape of German
public transport
The legal and organizational framework in which public transport takes place in Germany is shaped by a large number of laws
and ordinances that regulate planning, approval, operation, market access and financing. The core of this set of rules is the
Passenger Transport Act (PBefG). As part of the concept of public services of general interest, public transport has been part of
the public sector since the 1930s; Due to its duty of care, the state should guarantee sufficient basic mobility for all members of
society (opponent & Schwedes, 2014). On the one hand, this ensures the traffic development of areas that cannot be served
profitably (e.g. rural areas), on the other hand, the design also shapes the structures of public transport that are extremely
remote from the market. Even today, this can still be described as highly subsidized and state-regulated. The offer does not arise
on the free market, but is largely determined by political decision-makers: Market entry, prices, standards and lines are subject -
at least in part - to state regulation and thus also ensure service in regions with low demand. Politics and administration have a
special role in shaping framework conditions and can help shape future developments by consciously setting rules (Schnieder,
2014). Standards and lines are subject - at least in part - to state regulation and thus also ensure service in regions with little
demand. Politics and administration have a special role in shaping framework conditions and can help shape future
developments by consciously setting rules (Schnieder, 2014). Standards and lines are subject - at least in part - to state regulation
and thus also ensure service in regions with little demand. Politics and administration have a special role in shaping framework
conditions and can help shape future developments by consciously setting rules (Schnieder, 2014).
Providers of the transport services are often local municipal companies or companies in
municipal hands (e.g. municipal utilities), the characteristics of which can vary greatly in terms of
their legal, organizational or operational form due to adaptation to local conditions depending
on the context (Wilke & Bongardt, 2004) .
The most extensive form of cooperation in public transport are the so-called transport associations. The task of the transport associations
is to give the particular interests of the individual transport companies a uniform timetable and tariff basis. During the 1970s and 1980s
mainly through a"extensive technical modernization " (Gertz & Gertz, 2012, p. 4), the liberalization intentions of the EU and the federal
government have dominated the discussion in the industry since the 1990s. After long negotiation processes, the PBefG was adjusted
accordingly and the regulatory framework for market access relaxed. The requirements now also enable operators of alternative modes of
transport to offer their services on the free market. Although the discussion about increased competition revealed the industry's deep
suspicion of competitive incentives (Karl, 2014), many companies have since adapted to the new competitive situation (Gertz & Gertz,
2012). On the one hand, public transport in Germany is still heavily geared towards the use of traditional means of transport that are
specialized in public transport. These primarily include buses and trains (above all buses, trams and regional trains), occasionally
supplemented by - where necessary - taxis and ferries (Ammoser & Hoppe, 2006). On the other hand, however, public transport already
cooperates in many places with providers of alternative mobility services, such as bike or car sharing providers, especially in metropolitan
areas. Gertz and Gertz (2012) foresee a development in the future of the transport associations in which they, in the role of coordinator,
promote the further organizational networking of means of transport and services and thus develop into mobility associations. There are
currently no reference projects for assessing the consequences of such collaborations. Until then it will probably not be over that the
assessments of the meaning of such mobility networks range between two opposing poles. While some see cooperation with the
competition as counterproductive for their own position in the competition and fear losing market share, others emphasize the positive
effects of cooperation, in which an expansion of the range can lead to mutual synergy effects (Gertz & Gertz, 2012). In order to
successfully shape this development stage, in addition to considerable human and financial resources, standardized procedures for the
establishment of mobility associations that are currently not available to the transport associations are required (Schnieder, 2014). While
some see cooperation with the competition as counterproductive for their own position in the competition and fear losing market share,
others emphasize the positive effects of cooperation, in which an expansion of the range can lead to mutual synergy effects (Gertz &
Gertz, 2012). In order to successfully shape this development stage, in addition to considerable human and financial resources,
standardized procedures for the establishment of mobility associations that are currently not available to the transport associations are
required (Schnieder, 2014). While some see cooperation with the competition as counterproductive for their own position in the
competition and fear losing market share, others emphasize the positive effects of cooperation, in which an expansion of the range can
lead to mutual synergy effects (Gertz & Gertz, 2012). In order to successfully shape this development stage, in addition to considerable
human and financial resources, standardized procedures for the establishment of mobility associations that are currently not available to
the transport associations are required (Schnieder, 2014).
In addition to the state as responsible and public or private transport companies or transport companies as service providers for public transport, other interest
groups (e.g. private providers or users) also shape the landscape of stakeholders in public transport (Ammoser & Hoppe, 2006). Particularly in metropolitan
areas, some developments in mobility behavior indicate that the framework conditions for public transport are changing. In the younger generation in particular,
tendencies towards a more pragmatic attitude towards automobility can be seen (e.g. Gossen, Scholl, Holzhauer & Schipperges, 2015; Puhe & Schippl, 2014). The
generation of today's 18-35 year olds is increasingly multimodal and less often has their own car. Public transport is enjoying increasing acceptance, especially
among the younger (18-35) and middle generation (36-60) (Weiß, Chlond, Hilgert & Vortisch, 2016). However, it is currently still uncertain whether the behavioral
changes observed in this generation will remain stable or whether a switch to the automotive way of life will only be postponed to later phases of life (e.g.
starting a career or starting a family). Attractive public transport offers, which also open up areas with low usage intensity, could be a way of retaining current
regular customers for the longer term and of attracting the attention of occasional customers (Gertz & Gertz, 2012). whether the behavioral changes observed in
this generation remain stable or whether a switch to the automotive way of life is merely postponed to later phases of life (e.g. starting a career or starting a
family). Attractive public transport offers, which also open up areas with low usage intensity, could be a way of retaining current regular customers for the longer
term and of attracting the attention of occasional customers (Gertz & Gertz, 2012). whether the behavioral changes observed in this generation remain stable or
whether a switch to the automotive way of life is merely postponed to later phases of life (e.g. starting a career or starting a family). Attractive public transport
offers, which also open up areas with low usage intensity, could be a way of retaining current regular customers for the longer term and of attracting the
attention of occasional customers (Gertz & Gertz, 2012).

2.5. The legal framework for urban cable cars

The legislation on cable cars - in Germany - is not the responsibility of the federal government
(Stennecken & Neumann, 2016). However, the PBefG mentioned in Section 2.4 as a central
instrument in the regulation of public transport is federal law, which is why cable cars are
explicitly excluded from its scope. Instead, the legislative competence on ropeways lies with the
federal states, which have also had to enact corresponding laws at the latest since the entry into
force of the European ropeway directive (Directive 2000/9 / EC). However, this requirement was
met in different ways, so that the legal situation in Germany today is inconsistent; Most federal
states have enacted their own state cable car laws in which
Among other things, details on planning and approval are regulated (Stennecken & Neumann, 2016). For use in
public transport, the public transport laws of the federal states are also relevant, since the federal states are also
responsible for the specific design of public transport. In the public transport laws of the federal states, however,
cable cars are also not dealt with uniformly, so that the integration of cable cars in public transport cannot take
place in the same way everywhere.
For example, in 2012, in North Rhine-Westphalia, cable cars were explicitly included in the
scope of the law on local public transport (ÖPNVG NRW, status:
04/13/2016) added. The applicability of the Public Transport Act in North Rhine-Westphalia
expressly gives rise to the usual public transport funding opportunities for cable cars, especially
for new construction investments. Before the change in 2012, cable cars were explicitly excluded
in § 1 (4) ÖPNVG NRW. According to the draft law, the rationale for this part of the amendment
was as follows:
“In special exceptional cases, cable cars should also come under the scope of the law if they
are used exclusively for local public transport. Another prerequisite is that the applicable
community tariff and the nationwide tariff are used for the transport.[...] This means that
there is basically also the possibility of using the subsidies regulated in the Public Transport
Act of North Rhine-Westphalia for the cable cars that can be allocated to public transport. " (
State government of North Rhine-Westphalia, 2012, pp. 23-24)
The Baden-Württemberg Public Transport Act, on the other hand, does not mention cable cars at all, so neither
explicitly includes nor excludes them. In accordance with the definition in Section 2 of the Public Transport Act in
Baden-Württemberg, cable cars should still be able to fall under the Public Transport Act if they fulfill public
transport purposes, which is relevant for local transport plans, for example.
However, the funding of public transport investments is fundamentally different in Baden-Württemberg. First of
all, it should be explained that public transport investments in the municipalities have been funded for decades by
the federal government with the instrument of the Municipal Transport Financing Act (GVFG). The GVFG has
previously and continues to exclude cable cars from its scope; it refers to the"Construction or expansion of traffic
routes for a) trams, elevated and underground railways as well as railways of special construction " (Section 2
Paragraph 1 No. 2 GVFG). Today, however, only a small proportion (20%, federal program in accordance with
Section 6 (1) and Section 10 (2) of the GVFG) of public transport investment funding is carried out through the
GVFG itself; the far greater part (80%) has come from the federal government since the reorganization - Country
relations in the course of the Entflechtungsgesetz (Entflechtungsgesetz) in the responsibility of the states. Since
2014, the funds made available by the federal government have only been earmarked for investment purposes
(Section 5 EntflechtG). Unlike, for example, North Rhine
For this purpose, Westphalia (see above), Baden-Württemberg has enacted its own State
Municipality Transport Financing Act (LGVFG). The LGVFG initially directly adopted the
regulations of the GVFG and thus also the exclusion of cable cars. In 2015, however, there was an
amendment to the law in which, among other things, the point cited above was changed so that
the eligible projects today include the"Construction or expansion of traffic routes for a) trams
and urban cable cars " (Section 2 No. 3 LGVFG), thus creating a new funding option for this mode
of transport (although the funding rates in the LGVFG are lower than in the GVFG). In the first
discussion of this change in the law in the state parliament of Baden-Württemberg, urban cable
cars were presented as still unusual, but explicitly as inexpensive and innovative means of
transport under the topic of expanding funding opportunities (Landtag von Baden-Württemberg,
2015a, 2015b).
In Baden-Württemberg there are therefore no fundamental legal hurdles in the area of public
transport and the LGVFG that would prevent the use of cable cars in urban areas as part of public
transport and the promotion of corresponding investments.
16
3. Methodical approach
The focus of this work report is the question of how cable cars are currently being used as public
transport in practice. In addition to the presentation of practical examples, assessments by
experts from the field of (traffic) planning are presented to answer this question.
The starting point was a literature research on the subject of urban cable cars. It should be
noted that although there is some literature on the subject, it is often more concerned with
the technical characteristics of ropeway systems. The use of ropeways in urban areas is a
recent phenomenon and a significant part of the information available therefore also goes
back - at least indirectly - to statements and publications by the ropeway manufacturers, for
whom the topic is of course also of economic interest. The most important contributions
have been included in the previous Chapter 2.
The perspective on the means of transport chosen in this work report is pioneering in that it
does not primarily describe the technical features and the suitability of urban ropeways for
transport, but rather the planning processes in the context of which ropeway projects are carried
out. The research questions are therefore rather exploratory and therefore comparatively open
in order to uncover important characteristics that may make cable cars a special means of
transport for transport planning. In essence, they revolve around the question of why cable cars
have so far often not been considered as a planning option or why corresponding project ideas
are often not pursued further:
● Do well-rehearsed routines of the traffic planners prevent the spread of urban cable cars (in
Germany)?
● Do established players in German public transport and their use of new means of transport
prevent the spread of urban cable cars (in Germany)?
● Does the difficult (structural) integration of urban cable cars into the cityscape prevent the
spread of urban cable cars (in Germany)?
● Does a poor fit of the projects proposed so far with the actual transport needs prevent
the spread of urban cable cars (in Germany)?
To this end, several series of qualitative, guideline-based interviews were conducted. These are
standardized to a certain extent in order to draw comparable results from the results of the
respective interview series, but leave enough space for the interviewee to convey his or her
knowledge in response to open questions (cf. Flick, 2005).
First series of interviews: expert interviews
In a first series of interviews, two experts on transport planning in general, an independent ropeway
planner and representatives of the two currently most important manufacturers of urban ropeways
were interviewed. The interviews each lasted one to two hours and were deliberately conducted in an
open discussion atmosphere in order to leave enough space for the interlocutors to, for example,
draw our attention to technical challenges that they considered important or difficulties in political
decision-making processes (for expert interviews, see e.g. Pfadenhauer, 2009). In addition to the
independent ropeway planner and the ropeway manufacturers, the two experts on general traffic
planning had already worked with different ones
3. Methodical approach 17th
To do ropeway projects professionally, so that in all interviews a large number of concrete

cases from practice were used in order to make more abstract problems and challenges
tangible. The key questions in this series of interviews focused on the following topics:
● Main questions: The current environment for urban cable cars - the planning process
○ Difficulties in establishing urban cable cars
○ Role of different actors - who are the 'key players'?
○ Role of public transport companies
○ Difficulties in the specific planning process
● Additional questions: Currently observable developments - outlook
○ Change in the perception of the cable car as a means of transport among professional
actors
○ Expectations for the further development in Germany / Baden-Württemberg
The interviews were recorded digitally and then transcribed for further analysis. Only during
the interview with Doppelmayr was digital recording not permitted; instead, a memory log
was made immediately after the interview, which was used for further analysis. The results
from the first series of interviews are presented in Sections 4.1 (transport planning, cable
car planning) and 4.2 (cable car manufacturer).
Selection of practical examples
In addition to our own research results, the first interviews also served to select suitable
practical examples for the next step. The presentation of these practical examples serves to
collect characteristics of previous ropeway projects and a basis of experience from the
planning processes around these projects in order to create a suitable working basis for the
following work phases of the project "High up in Baden-Württemberg". For this reason, the
practical examples are limited to projects from German cities, despite the fact that most of
the urban ropeway projects that have been implemented so far outside Germany, with one
exception from Switzerland. The focus on Germany ensures optimal comparability for the
employment with three study areas in Baden-Württemberg, which is planned in the
following project phase. Even in neighboring European countries, the legal planning
framework and the actors' regimes in public transport differ in some cases, so that the
transferability of experiences would be more difficult; this is all the more true for non-
European projects such as B. the urban cable cars in South America, which are currently
receiving a lot of media attention.
Nevertheless, there is also a sufficient number of projects available within Germany, since
for the present question not only plans that have been implemented, but also plans that
have not been pursued are of interest. The selection was made on the basis of the
recommendations of the interviewed experts (see above) and in such a way that different
contexts (e.g. initiating actor or area of activity) and different project progress (completed
projects, current plans, rejected or discontinued projects) were covered . For the selected
projects, based on publicly available documents (e.g. from the
Council information systems of the respective city administrations) as well as project profiles created on the
basis of media reports.
Second series of interviews: interviews with practitioners
For three practical examples, additional on-site interviews were conducted in a second series. For this
purpose, three cases were selected in such a way that among the three projects examined in more detail
there is one that has been implemented, one that is in the planning stage and one that is not being
pursued further. The interlocutors were selected depending on the concrete practical example in order to
capture the perspectives of the most important actors involved in the project (in particular city
administrations, transport companies or transport associations, participating politicians). These interviews
each lasted about an hour and were also guided by guidelines with a somewhat stronger structure. In
terms of content, the interviews were focused on the following topics:
● Assessment of the cable car idea at the first contact with the project
○ Reasons for approval or rejection
○ Personal role in relation to the cable car project
● Changes in attitude to the project over time
○ Crucial events or other actors
● Requirements for the realization of the project
○ Implementation difficulties
○ Actors involved
● Contribution of the project to urban policy goals
At the end of each conversation, the interview was supplemented by a reflective element,
the functionality of which is shown in Figure 3-1. This reflective element served on the one
hand to check and better classify the statements made in the interview, on the other hand it
was also possible to better relate the arguments of the several interviewees from the same
cities to each other after the end of the interview series.
Fig. 3-1: Interviews on the practical examples: Simplified structure laying technique
In the main part of the interview (left) Interviewer I asks the questions, Interviewer II collects key arguments
from the interviewee's answers on colored paper cards, sorted according to the pros and cons of the
ropeway project discussed. In the reflective part at the end of the interview (right), Interviewer II asks the
interlocutor to correct or add to it as well as to create a ranking of the previously collected arguments
according to their importance in the previously explained public discussion process about the cable car
project, if necessary with justification (simplified structural technique based on to Nolte (2011)).
This procedure is based on the so-called structure laying technique, in which, however, the
interlocutors are usually only confronted with the core statements derived from it within a
maximum of 14 days after an initial evaluation of the interview in order to correct,
supplement and organize them (Flick, 2005). For practical research reasons (availability of
interlocutors, travel expenses to the respective cities), the reflective element was used in a
simplified form, as in Nolte (2011), to conclude the conversation and the structuring of the
arguments was essentially reduced to prioritization.
The interviews in the three cities were also digitally recorded and then transcribed for further
analysis. The results of the second series of interviews are integrated into the presentation of the
practical examples in Section 5.1. Those examined practical examples for which no on-site
interviews could be conducted are described in Section 5.2.
Classification in the project context
The methods described here only form the basis for the first working phase of the project
“Up high”, in which the previous practice of urban aerial cableways is examined. In the
following work phase, the knowledge gained will be used to develop conclusive and
meaningful implementation scenarios for potential Baden-Württemberg applications of
urban aerial ropeways. These are used as a basis for discussion in various workshops both
with planners and professional actors on site and with local citizens (see also Chapter 7).
These workshops and the methods used there are not part of this work report.
20th
4. Expert assessments on urban

aerial ropeways
This chapter presents the results of the interviews with experts on traffic and ropeway
planning in general (Section 4.1) and with the two leading ropeway manufacturers on the
market (Section 4.2).
4.1. The planning perspective

Since the cable car is still a new means of transport for urban areas, as described in Chapter 2,
there has not yet been a particularly large group of experts who have dealt intensively with the
topic, at least in Germany. Nevertheless, two interviewees, professors emeritus Heiner Monheim
(University of Trier) and Hartmut Topp (Technical University of Kaiserslautern), who had already
dealt with a large number of urban ropeway planning, were able to be interviewed. A third
interview was carried out with the team from the Schweiger engineering office, which mainly
oversees cable car planning in the mountains, but has also dealt with a number of urban projects
(for example the Wuppertal project, see Section 5.1.2). The details of the interviews are listed in
Table 4-1.
Tab. 4-1: Interview partner for the expert interviews carried out (planning)
Institution / company date location Interlocutor
Traffic geography Prof. Dr. Heiner Monheim

03/03/2016 Bonn
University of Trier (Emeritus)
Traffic planning
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Hartmut Topp
Technical University 03/23/2016 Kaiserslautern
(Emeritus)
Kaiserslautern
Ropeway planning Arno Schweiger, Anna Schweiger,

05/31/2016 Sonthofen
Schweiger engineering office Florian Schweiger, Patrick Maier
All interviewees are basically in agreement that cable cars have potential in public transport,
but are not a panacea. They have"only a very specific area of application, [...] these are
point-to-point connections " (Interview with Hartmut Topp). However, precisely because of
these special characteristics, they can prove to be particularly advantageous precisely where
this property is particularly important. However, in the end it is often lacking at a higher
level"The political will and the agreement with the citizens" (Interview with Hartmut Topp).
These points also shine through at many points in the challenges presented below.
4. Expert assessments on urban aerial ropeways 21
Routines in traffic planning

Cable cars as an urban means of transport are a young phenomenon. However, this does
not only apply to the general public's perception, it also applies to specialist groups in traffic
planning:"10 years ago that was mistaken for an April Fool's joke " (Interview with Heiner
Monheim). Hartmut Topp explicitly ascribes the merit of his colleague Monheim for having
created awareness of this option in the first place in view of the planning manual "Urban
Cable Cars" (Monheim et al., 2010) which he co-authored:"There was even the cable car, yes,
which was only known from skiing, was even transferred to urban contexts " (Interview with
Hartmut Topp).
Arno Schweiger emphasizes that cable cars have already existed in urban areas in earlier
decades, e. B. to earlier federal horticultural shows. However"were the systems more or less
not intended for urban, for public transport, but always as excursion and recreational
railways, as leisure railways " (Interview with the Schweiger engineering office). Even today it
is difficult to get beyond this perception in Germany.
However, the experts are also aware of changes that have taken place in the meantime and
mean that the new means of transport is now being taken more seriously:
“If we discussed the same question that we are discussing here today 15 years ago
would have - we would not have discussed it at all, and if we had discussed it we
would have been absolute outsiders, and that is no longer the case. So, a cable car is
brought up again and again by traffic planners and city planners as a realistic
possibility. So something has changed. "(Interview with Hartmut Topp)
In the concrete technical planning with established methods, for example in traffic modeling
and the evaluation of projects, there are still difficulties, which Arno Schweiger describes as
follows:
"That is certainly very, very difficult, because you simply cannot throw a cable car system
into the same pot as an underground or tram system, and what's more: the standardized
assessment that was created there, the template, it doesn't fit in any way for the cable
car. So they don't even know a cable car and so it is of course extremely complicated to
carry out a standardized assessment, especially from a group of people who do not have
a lot of experience and success with the subject of cable cars. "(Interview with the
Schweiger engineering office)
The lack of experience with the unknown means of transport makes comparisons between
alternative means of transport particularly difficult, confirms Florian Schweiger. Even
between buses and trams, for example, depreciation periods are different, with the cable
car, among other things, that it does not need an independent depot and the necessary
maintenance facilities are instead integrated into the systems on site, which makes
comparability difficult. This difference in ropeway planning also means that ropeway
planning nowadays is largely independent of other planning by own offices:"A cable car can
be treated really independently in this regard. The only thing we always control are the
interfaces, so to speak "(Interview the engineering office
4. Expert assessments on urban aerial ropeways 22nd
Schweiger). However, cable cars are hardly included in comprehensive traffic development
plans.
The lack of knowledge of the characteristics of urban ropeways in the broad mass of
transport planners already begins with the fact that these are nowadays even discussed in
very few courses:
“That is central. So if every traffic planner who is being trained today has a cable car
chapter in his training, then he has at least one - here, whether he likes cable cars or
not is another question - but he has dealt with it. That is ... does not take place. "(
Interview with Heiner Monheim)
Another difficulty arises from the fact that "German planner [...] consider the change to be a disaster "
(Interview with Heiner Monheim). It is a completely normal part of public transport and, due to the
paternoster principle in circulating ropeways, a change to the ropeway should be assessed very
differently than between 'conventional' means of transport.
Overall, there is a lack of city-wide perspectives in which individual public transport projects are
integrated; instead, these individual projects are examined with a magnifying glass. "which,
when dealing with the effects of projects, also leads to total perceptual illusions " (Interview with
Heiner Monheim). The performance of the ropeway systems also has to be explained again and
again, other topics such as accessibility are generally not very problematic, but persuasion must
always be done (interview with Hartmut Topp).
Established actors and how they deal with innovations in public transport
Heiner Monheim occasionally sees the actors involved in German public transport "knee-jerk
defensive attitudes " compared to the new cable car system. Often the financing and in particular
the eligibility for funding is a point of discussion, especially in the case of really urban railways
integrated in public transport:"Everything that serves the purpose of public transport and that is
largely determined by the tariff integration is logically eligible "(Interview with Heiner Monheim)
(for the legal framework, see Section 2.5). Even during the planning process, cable cars did not
fundamentally behave differently from the established alternatives, emphasizes Arno Schweiger"
Plan approval procedure, as for other means of transport ".
However, it usually occurs in day-to-day planning "Relevance criteria [...]where something very special
somehow gets into the exotic corner " (Interview with Heiner Monheim). The perception as something
'special' is illustrated by Anna Schweiger's experiences:
"Whereby, we often have it, in authorities who make important decisions for the
project, that we meet people who have never ridden a cable car, who have absolutely
no idea of a cable car and still make important decisions afterwards: Do we want
that now? Is there such a thing? Is it supposed to? Or not? And I have to say: You
might have to bring them to the spot and say: Take a look at what you don't want
afterwards. That is also such a topic. There are many officials in the authorities who
decide about it and have absolutely no idea about it. "(Interview with the Schweiger
engineering office)
The same applies to the handling of additional systems by today's operators of public transport
systems, emphasizes Arno Schweiger:
“Of course, the municipal utilities and transport companies always have their own planners for
their entire transport concept. And then of course the question arises: the planner, the
respective transport concept, deals with the topic of cable cars, yes or no. And that is a very
all-encompassing subject area and of course it is often not that easy to get across to someone
who has never had anything to do with the subject before. "(Interview with the Schweiger
engineering office)
Many transport companies are fundamentally critical of the introduction of a new

technology (interview with the Schweiger engineering office). The technology used today is
known, with a new system there is always a risk of failure, which means that the new system
is not dealt with at all."System changes rarely generate enthusiasm, right? ", says Hartmut
Topp and Heiner Monheim thinks Germany as a whole in the transport sector "quite
resistant to innovation "which was shown, for example, by the initially very slow expansion
of transport associations as an organizational innovation. He does, however, like the sector
that it is concretely limited in its ability to innovate due to the lack of space for strategic
thinking in view of financial and personnel bottlenecks.
Nevertheless, Heiner Monheim sees a certain momentum of its own, which will also bring
successful urban ropeway projects and additional training content in the future. But that's just a
slow, tough process. In some projects, such as the one in Cologne (see section 5.1.3), the
operator side, there in the form of the transport association, was already active as a driver of a
cable car project (interview with Hartmut Topp). There is now also interest in politics and the
eligibility for funding if the relevant criteria are met is emphasized (interview with Heiner
Monheim).
Given that ropeway projects are often not pursued, Hartmut Topp makes it clear that
rejecting a plan is not a specific feature of the ropeway:
“The fact that the project does not go any further after a feasibility study is not
limited to cable cars. This happens to subways and trams as well.[...] As a first
approximation, I would assume that the risk of failure is just as great with
conventional transport investments as with the cable car. But that is now an
unprotected hypothesis. And I mean, if you want to extend a tram somewhere, that's
not easy either. "(Interview with Hartmut Topp)
On the one hand, this point points to the generally lengthy planning processes in the further
development of urban public transport systems with a large number of stakeholders; on the other
hand, it also works together with the often difficult structural integration of new transport
infrastructure, which will be discussed in detail below.
Suitable for the needs of public transport
Both Heiner Monheim and Arno Schweiger see a major problem with previous ideas for urban
ropeway projects in the fact that these were usually created or expressed without any further
transport planning context:
"Up to now, cable car projects have always been popping up more or less randomly, they fall from the sky
somewhere, because somewhere a councilor, a department head suddenly comes up with the idea:
Oops, cable cars are something." (Interview with Heiner Monheim)
“One thing is certain: someone comes up with the clever idea: We could think about a
cable car. Without even thinking, can it even work in this area? "(Interview with the
Schweiger engineering office)
For this reason, Arno Schweiger also has difficulties with the term 'feasibility study'. A lot is
feasible, but his projects are about 'concept studies' that can actually be implemented on
the chosen route. In Heiner Monheim's view, even this is not enough, since urban ropeway
projects should first be derived from the overall traffic analysis at the level of local traffic
and traffic development planning. This means that the position of transport companies
must also be taken into account in the core of the projects that have been carried out so far"
partly outside " are (interview with the Schweiger engineering office). However, according to
Arno Schweiger, your participation is essential:
“The transport company has to run it and there has to be an overall solution for
public transport in the respective city. And so it is also very important that the local
transport company is closely involved. "(Interview with the Schweiger engineering
office)
So far, that is exactly what has not happened, instead "[you] stumble across cable cars somewhere
and never at the level of local transport planning, but always at the level of some very special project "
(Interview with Heiner Monheim). Hartmut Topp states, however, that an external reason
- from which such a 'special project' is derived - can also be a very important driver
who can lead a ropeway project to success. Nevertheless, the projects should also be
planned in such a way that they become part of normal public transport and not
(exclusively) a tourist attraction.
In this sense, both Heiner Monheim and Hartmut Topp see the project in Hamburg, which
failed due to its rejection in a referendum, very critically. According to his information,
Heiner Monheim had suggested several times,"they should think about system integration.
Nobody was interested ". The originally planned connection to Wilhelmsburg could have
turned into public transport, but it did"one should have negotiated [with the port authority].
You didn't do that. Because the transport company wasn't involved either "(Interview with
Hartmut Topp). So it remained a purely touristic project, which was rightly rejected.
Heiner Monheim also sees the Koblenz example as the only high-performance cable car
implemented in urban areas in Germany for similar reasons "ambivalent". It is a good
demonstrator for the high performance of the technical cable car system, but only in the
operated form on a (too short) connection without being integrated into public transport"
lucrative as a special tourist system " (Interview with Heiner Monheim).
Arno Schweiger definitely sees the future viability of the topic of urban cable cars. However, making
the advantages of the system visible and actually implementing more projects is still difficult,"as long
as we don't have a model cable car in public transport, a real public transport cable car " (Interview
with the Schweiger engineering office).
Urban integration
For Heiner Monheim as well as for Hartmut Topp, it is logical and justified for residents of a
possible cable car route to ask about the impairments. Not everyone likes to be in the
4. Expert assessments on urban aerial ropeways 25th
Garden look and "if I have a plot of land, theoretically the air space up to the moon belongs to me " (
Interview with Hartmut Topp). It then comes down to the weighing of advantages and disadvantages
and"how plausible this is " (Interview with Heiner Monheim). Politically, this would also be difficult
depending on the residential area concerned:"If that is still a part of the city where influential people
live, then you don't answer " (Interview with Hartmut Topp). The question of the locally affected
residents is therefore an essential one for urban ropeway projects:
“You shouldn't downplay this argument. If you want to successfully implement a cable
car, you have to see that this aspect is minimized. "(Interview with Hartmut Topp)
Because of this, Heiner recommends Monheim for urban cable car planning "to stay in the
public street space as much as possible ". There is still a lot to learn technically, such as
z. B. has only been possible and established for a few years now that it has been possible to take easy
bends. However, Arno Schweiger, for example, is well aware of this problem, but still comes across
limits in the specific projects:
“Of course, we always try to say in the context of technical planning that we move as little
as possible through private property. But unfortunately that doesn't work everywhere.
And that's a big problem. "(Interview with the Schweiger engineering office)
From the point of view of Arno Schweiger, the type of resistance expressed by those who
may be affected makes things much more difficult. Often the affected person is not yet
known in detail, one is"just against such a new solution " (Interview with the Schweiger
engineering office). Overall, Florian Schweiger observes great difficulties in major transport
infrastructure projects in Germany. This applies not only to cable cars, but also to S-Bahn, U-
Bahn and trams. Arno Schweiger outlines his experience with the cable car then directly
about influencing privacy (see above). Overall, Florian Schweiger sees different types of
resistance:
“Some people just have worries, so they want to know briefly: How is it? You can take
their fear away from them if you can now argue sensibly, yes, that is so and so, there
is no problem. Then that's ok for them. Then there are those who have a problem
with it that cannot be solved 100% now, they have to be given special advice, talk to
them, and come to a compromise. And then there is the group that is always there,
that just wants to cause trouble. So that just brings in unrest. Then there are people
who may not even come from the city, they come from somewhere else, they just
come ... yes, they need something to shoot at. "(Interview with the Schweiger
engineering office)
These different groups of resistances also require a differentiated approach on the part of the
planner. Especially with the resistance of the latter group, it is also problematic that many"
Incorrect information, be it due to ignorance, or simply incorrectly disseminated information or
incomplete information " (Interview with the Schweiger engineering office) made it difficult to
deal with and the press was also very happy to take up and spread resistance. From Arno
Schweiger's point of view, however, the question of the amount at which private property ends
must be"be solved with a precedent somewhere in Germany ".
4.2. The perspective of the cable car manufacturer
The ropeway market worldwide is a relatively small market that is essentially dominated by two
large providers, the Leitner / Poma company based in South Tyrol (around 40% market share)
and the Doppelmayr / Garaventa company from Austria (around 60% market share). Both
companies not only have mountain railways in their product range, but also summer railways,
railways for material transport and urban ropeway solutions. There are also some smaller
providers who mainly operate in niche markets (Rudolph, 2009). Personal interviews were
conducted with both market leaders for this project (Tab. 4-2).
Tab. 4-2: Interview partner for the expert interviews carried out (cable car manufacturer)
Companies date location Interlocutor
Doppelmayr Ekkehard Assmann; Wolfram Auer;

Wolfurt
official company name: 03/15/2016 Günter Troy; Catherine Bernard; Julia
(Austria)
Doppelmayr Seilbahnen GmbH Summer; Dr. Johannes Fiedler
Leitner Michael Tanzer, Sales Manager

06/16/2016 Munich
Official company name: Leitner AG for Austria and Germany
Winter trains still make up around 80% of the total volume of all orders (Rudolph, 2009;
interview with Leitner). However, winter business has only represented the larger sales
market since the increasing spread of mass tourism in mountain sports regions in the
1950s; the first cable cars for passenger transport were built in urban areas (interview with
Doppelmayr). According to Doppelmayr, despite reports to the contrary, the winter business
is still profitable and will remain the most important sales market in the future. Apart from a
few growth markets, the winter business is largely a substitute business (Rudolph, 2009).
Against this background, urban ropeway solutions represent an interesting, complementary business
area from the manufacturer's point of view "with great future potential " dar (interview with Leitner).
Doppelmayr reports that only 20% of the project ideas are initiated by Doppelmayr, the majority of
the ideas are based on external inquiries. The Leitner company also confirms that they have not"make
a pilgrimage from city to city, from mayor to mayor ". According to the manufacturers, it is
predominantly the cities, above all political decision-makers and planners, and increasingly also the
transport companies, who approach the manufacturers and inquire about the technical possibilities of
a cable car (interviews with Doppelmayr and Leitner). From their point of view, the decisive factor for
this development is primarily the paradigm shift in urban and transport planning, according to which
sustainable transport is predominantly capable of consensus today. Both manufacturers see a well-
planned urban cable car integrated into public transport as a component of sustainable transport
planning. However, in many places there is no precise plan as to how this should be completed. In the
places where these plans already exist, the argument for a cable car is much easier (interview with
Doppelmayr).
Basically, the manufacturers report a positive mood that suits them. It becomes problematic
as soon as an idea turns into a concrete project and there are of course those affected
(interview with Doppelmayr). Michael Tanzer (Leitner) describes it like this:
“Then there are often some visionaries with their cable car in the city and then, in my
opinion, the first mistake usually happens: concrete projects immediately become. Then
plans are presented where the supports are in the correct position, where the stations
are in the correct position. And for me, or from my point of view, that's taken very far too
far. "(Interview with Leitner)
Doppelmayr reports on various levels of resistance that can be more or less easily assessed
or handled. It is relatively easy to assess whether a large infrastructure project has any
chance of being pursued from the political side at the present time. The extent to which
individual residents are affected can also be assessed well. It is difficult to assess the
interests in the neighborhood. Where exactly the cable car or its supports are located is
decided there and here 150 m could be very decisive and cause a wide variety of reactions
that are very difficult to predict.
Both manufacturers report that in ropeway projects, the technical details are often very much in the
foreground. First of all, however, the benefit to the customer must be communicated; The advantages
would have to be emphasized such as the available space, the accessibility, the short waiting times,
the comfort of the cabins, the new level, the ecological advantage.
“When I get on public transport, I am interested in: Do I have enough space? Is it

comfortable Is it fast enough And how long is the waiting time?[...] Do I sit softly, do I
have to stand, is it hard, is it cold, is it warm? Or is it only possible when the weather is
nice, but not when the weather is bad? That is what the end user wants. "(Interview with
Leitner)
If all the advantages to the population were communicated, concrete projects and plans could be
discussed. The manufacturers see the greatest challenge in the communication of the projects;
Michael Tanzer emphasizes, however:"We can deliver the technology, we can support
arguments, we cannot inspire the population ". Well-founded and comprehensive comparisons
of variants, in which the cable car remains the best possible alternative in some problematic
situations, would be of enormous importance in communication with the population. This often
gives planners and decision-makers the background information they need to vouch for a
ropeway solution. Both manufacturers report insufficient half-knowledge among decision-
makers and the general public, in particular due to the lack of references, and plead for more
research in this area.
The manufacturers usually describe the public transport companies as very interested in the
cable car projects and in most cases also as open to new ideas. Nevertheless, they of course
primarily think in terms of bus, tram and subway categories."That is their core competence "says
Michael Tanzer. In this way of thinking, the cable car often appears as a factor of uncertainty;
there is a lack of guidelines and design parameters for precise assessment. If a transport
company does not want a cable car, it was emphasized in the interview with Doppelmayr that it
would also find arguments against it. In the interviews, however, it was also emphasized that the
manufacturers are not necessarily concerned with operating a cable car and exclusively
to operate profitable routes, i.e. to take market share away from traditional public transport. "It
is like that, we are actually manufacturers. Manufacturing of cable cars is our core competence ",
says Michael Tanzer. A cable car is always expected to have to be operated without subsidies,
whereas trams rarely get by without subsidies. Alternative operator concepts must also be
discussed here.
As a further resistance, the manufacturers name the changes in the cityscape that a cable car
would undoubtedly bring with it. Although the cable car has the advantage of using a new level
and thus opening up new perspectives, it is still clear"that the use of this level changes a
cityscape " (Interview with Leitner). Both companies seem to be responding to this challenge.
The Leitner company sometimes works with renowned architects who plan stations for them.
They were already on view with the Hungerburgbergbahn station in Innsbruck in the
Guggenheim Museum in New York.
The manufacturers are sympathetic to the concerns of the residents of such projects. Both
emphasize the different sensitivities in low-income versus financially strong residential
areas; If a cable car flies over a 'one million euro villa', it is understandable that resistance is
forming there. It goes without saying that privacy must be protected, and both emphasize
that, in their view, there are sufficient technical possibilities to darken the window panes of
the cabins or to protect those affected from falling rubbish. Michael Tanzer emphasizes that
the realization of a cable car route that runs exclusively on urban land has much higher
chances than if it were private property. Doppelmayr emphasizes
29
5. Practical examples
Up to and including July 2016, there were already ideas and projects for urban cable car
connections in a large number of German cities. For some of them, for example, the first
feasibility studies have been carried out, others are currently in public discussion or in
concrete planning. Figure 5-1 provides an overview. This overview is not necessarily
complete, as some of the projects listed are already project ideas that only briefly flashed as
an idea in the media and for which no further sources can be found that could be followed
up.
Legend
Cable car in operation

(but with a focus on tourism)
Ongoing examinations and planning

(partly at a very early stage)
Projects and plans currently not

being pursued or rejected
Project rejected by
referendum
Fig. 5-1: Overview map of urban ropeway projects in Germany

In cities that are marked with several colors, there have already been several project ideas.
Source: Own illustration
These practical cases cannot all be presented in more detail in this report; the description
below is limited to an exemplary selection. The most important characteristics of the
selected practical examples are summarized in Table 5-1. This also includes a practical
example from Switzerland (Zurich). For example, although the legal situation and planning
contexts in Switzerland differ significantly from those in Germany, the Zurich example is still
of interest for this report due to the specific circumstances of how the current plans for
cable car connections in Zurich came about (see Section 5.2. 4).
5. Practical examples 30th
Tab. 5-1: Overview table of the examined practical examples
Planning / idea
link
Public transport
status Barriers
since (–to) integration
Practical examples examined in detail (see Section 5.1)
link
Koblenz 2006
BUGA site
Hbf - University -
Wuppertal 2012
Küllenhahn
Cologne 2009-2010 Main station - Messe / Deutz
Further practical examples (see section 5.2)
1999 Connection
Künzelsau
(Opening) High altitude district
Connection to IGA,
Berlin 2013
District connection
Connection
Constancy 2013
University / Mainau
2008 Connection to the zoo or

Zurich
2016 various connections
Connection
Hamburg 2010-2014
Musical theater
Ulm 2011–2012 Hbf - University
trier 2009–2012 Hbf - University
Legend: Status of the project barriers to overcome Public transport integration
in operation (aerial cableway) River or watercourse Yes

Railway line or other
in operation (funicular) no
Infrastructure with a separating effect
under construction Height difference Not clear
in planning or first project idea
Planning discarded or
not pursued
5. Practical examples 31
5.1. Practical examples examined in detail
In this section the three practical examples Koblenz, Wuppertal and Cologne are presented. In
addition to the analysis of publicly available documents and media reports, several on-site
interviews were conducted for each of these three cities. As explained in Chapter 3, a project that
has already been implemented, one that is in the planning stage and one that has not been
pursued was specifically selected. For this reason, the question and, accordingly, the preparation
of the results cannot follow a uniform scheme, but are adapted to the individual cases.
5.1.1. Koblenz cable car (in operation)
In a nutshell
● What was connected

The cable car connects the city center of Koblenz (on the left bank of the Rhine) with the plateau of the Ehrenbreitstein Fortress
(on the right bank of the Rhine).
● What was the reason for the planning?

An efficient connection between the exhibition areas was required for the 2011
Federal Horticultural Show.
● What barriers had to be overcome?
River crossing (Rhine), height difference to Ehrenbreitstein Fortress
● How long did the planning run?

The planning began in 2006 at the latest in the course of the preparations for the Federal
Horticultural Show. The cable car was opened in 2010.
● Who were the driving forces?City of

Koblenz or BUGA project office
● Is a tariff integration into the local transport planned?
The integration of public transport has been suggested several times, but so far there has only been one
discount for public transport customers on the annual ticket. Due to the general framework of public
transport in Koblenz, further involvement is currently not likely.
● Which technology is used?

Detachable three-cable gondola lift, 882 m horizontal length, no intermediate station
● particularities
Originally, the cable car was supposed to be dismantled after the Federal Garden Show for
monument protection reasons, but later a longer service life was negotiated with Unesco.
Koblenz (109,000 inhabitants) is located on the Rhine, over which only the Pfaffendorf Bridge leads in
the area of the city center. In the city bus network, all lines to the city districts on the right bank of
the Rhine run over this bridge. The city bus network is part of the Rhein-Mosel transport association,
which also includes the Koblenz Rhine ferry and the Ehrenbreitstein fortress elevator. The ferry runs
between the old town and Ehrenbreitstein, but the operating times are limited.
A cable car has been running over the Rhine in Koblenz since 2010 (Fig. 5-2), on the development process
see also Puhe and Reichenbach (2014). The reason for the construction of the cable car was the Federal
Garden Show 2011, which included areas in the area of the castle and on the German corner (on the left
bank of the Rhine) as well as the plateau of the Ehrenbreitstein Fortress (on the right bank of the Rhine)
(Gandner, 2007). To better understand the planning process, three interviews were conducted on site in
Koblenz (interviewees in Tab. 5-2).
Fig. 5-2: Sketch of the route of the Koblenz cable car

The Koblenz cable car runs from Koblenz city center on the left bank of the Rhine (bottom right in the picture) to the
Ehrenbreitstein Fortress plateau on the right bank of the Rhine (top left in the picture). The areas marked in color on
both sides of the Rhine correspond to the partial areas of the Federal Garden Show 2011. Source: Fitz (2011)
Tab. 5-2: Interview partner for the on-site interviews in Koblenz
Interlocutor role date
Prof. Dr. Joachim

Lord Mayor of the City of Koblenz 04/14/2016
Hofmann-Göttig
Arndt Schwab Head of Urban Transport Planning 04/14/2016
Stephan Pauly Managing Director of the Rhein-Mosel Transport Association 04/14/2016
A high-performance means of transport was required for the route between the sections of the BUGA. The
cable car suggested early on for this turned out to be suitable and inexpensive in the planning process
(BUGA project office, 2007); a direct connection from Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer to the fortress plateau without
an intermediate station on the right bank of the Rhine was specifically selected (Gandner, 2007).
An alternative to this 950-meter-long cable car with a 4-minute journey would have been a
bus shuttle, which would have required 25 minutes for the route (Fitz, 2011) and, with the
corresponding operating expenses, also performed worse in a life cycle assessment report,
even though it was for passengers who do not use the cable car wanted, but a limited bus
service was offered (SPD Koblenz). The sufficient capacity of the road network for bus
transfers was also questionable, so that ultimately the cable car helped"to make the BUGA
assertive at all "(Interview with Arndt Schwab). The Doppelmayr / Garaventa Group received
a concession to operate the cable car, it also covered the operating costs and received the
income for it. The cable car manufacturer also financed the cable car and opened operations
on July 2, 2010. Doppelmayr describes the Koblenz cable car as a great economic success; In
the year of the Federal Garden Show, 4.6 million passengers were carried, on peak days up
to 50,000 (Fitz, 2011). The cable car is now operated by Skyglide Event Deutschland GmbH, a
subsidiary of the Doppelmayr / Garaventa Group. It runs daily from April to October
between 9:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., from November to March only on Saturdays, Sundays and
public holidays between 9:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. (as of July 2016, see Skyglide Event
Deutschland GmbH (2016))."very much stimulated by the cable car " (Interview with Joachim
Hofmann-Göttig). The Koblenz cable car has its own tariff, there are combination offers with
entry to the Ehrenbreitstein Fortress. However, subscription customers of EVM Verkehrs
GmbH (city bus operator in Koblenz) receive a discount on the annual ticket for the cable car
(EUR 79 instead of EUR 99 for adults, as of July 2016, see EVM Verkehrs GmbH (2016)).
Tab. 5-3: Arguments for and against the cable car in Koblenz
Per arguments Contra arguments
Short travel time Endangering the integrity of the Upper Middle

Rhine Valley World Heritage Site
Cost reduction for shuttle traffic Energy-
efficient and low-emission operation Ecological
advantages
Tourist attractiveness
Positive effects on retail and housing market
through better developed urban area
Source: own compilation. The arguments listed come from publications by the cable car operator (Fitz, 2011), other
participants such as the Federal Horticultural Show (BUGA project office, 2007), positions of individual actors (IHK
Koblenz, 2011 ; Schneider, 2010) and media articles (Georgi, 2013 ; Kallenbach, 2011).
Table 5-3 summarizes the main arguments that were used in Koblenz to argue for and against the
cable car before the actual construction. A central difficulty arose in the planning phase of the Koblenz
cable car due to the fact that the city is located in the Upper Middle Rhine Valley and that, as an
ensemble, it is under UNESCO cultural heritage protection. Originally the International Council for the
Preservation of Monuments assessed the cable car as not compatible with the world heritage, the
integrity of the world heritage site would be protected by the cable car"severely impaired " (ICOMOS,
2013, p. 15). Therefore, according to the original plans and the
corresponding concession, the cable car was dismantled again in 2014 after the Federal
Horticultural Show. However, the cable car was such a great success that the citizens of Koblenz
soon campaigned for the long-term preservation of the cable car and wanted to prevent its
dismantling. Finally, in further negotiations with the World Heritage Committee, it was achieved
that the cable car may initially continue to operate until the end of its technical service life in
2026 (Georgi, 2013). In the meantime, with the extension of the so-called building law at the level
of a development plan and the zoning plan of the city of Koblenz, the local legal requirements
have also been created (Stadtverwaltung Koblenz, 2014).
Possible public transport integration of the Koblenz cable car
At this point it should be noted that the Koblenz cable car from the first idea to commissioning
and today's good use - as described up to this point - is not an urban cable car in the sense of the
definition presented in section 2.2. Although it is located in urban areas, it is primarily used for
tourism purposes. The history of the origins of the Koblenz cable car is still important for
understanding the circumstances, as the question regularly arises today whether the cable car
should not be integrated into public transport. This discussion around this question - which
depends on whether the Koblenz cable car will become a real urban cable car after all - is
presented below.
In the context of considerations regarding the subsequent use of the exhibition grounds of
the Federal Horticultural Show, the option of integrating the cable car into the public
transport network was introduced in 2011 (IHK Koblenz, 2011). In 2012, the integration of
the cable car was also discussed in the city council of Koblenz on the occasion of a request
from the CDU council group (CDU council group Koblenz, 2012). The reasons given were the
dependence of the future of the cable car on sufficient use and the critical parking situation
in the city center. Both suggest that the cable car should not only be used as a feeder to the
fortress, but also vice versa as a connection to the city center when coming from outside. In
its statement, the city administration stated that an integration of public transport would
result in a denser cycle of the inner-city bus line, longer operating times,"Income loss
compensation in favor of the cable car operator for ticket recognition" (Office for Urban
Development and Building Regulations of the City of Koblenz, 2012, p. 1). Neither the state
nor the transport association could partially cover the corresponding costs, but as
(voluntary) services by the city they could not be financed, which is why extensive
integration was ruled out at the time.
These arguments are still valid today, as can be seen from the positions of the mayor, the
city administration and the Rhein-Mosel transport association from the three on-site
interviews in Koblenz. A stronger integration of the cable car into public transport would be
welcomed on a visionary level and there is in particular seen potential to reduce car traffic,
but this integration still does not appear to be feasible. The Koblenz cable car works well -
but as a tourist project and part of the local recreation facilities, not as public transport.
for not feasible. For the stronger integration of the cable car tax money would have to be used, which the
city of Koblenz"in the transport sector, especially with public transport, it is better to put it in other projects
" (Interview with Arndt Schwab), who are more urgent to improve public transport. If you want to use the
cable car regularly as public transport today and if the current operating times are sufficient for this, you
can do so with the available annual ticket, the prices of which appear to be well tolerated compared to the
price and performance level of the other public transport in Koblenz.
Fig. 5-3: Excerpt from the Koblenz public transport network in the area of the cable car
The section of the route network map shows the EVM Verkehrs GmbH bus routes crossing the Rhine, the Rhine ferry and the
Ehrenbreitstein fortress elevator (all included in the Rhein-Mosel transport association) as well as the cable car (not included
in the transport association). The excerpt has been greatly simplified for the sake of clarity and has been relieved of
numerous details that are not relevant in the context of the integration of the cable car with public transport (line numbers,
other stops, etc.). Source: EVM Verkehrs GmbH (2015), edited and simplified.
Another argument against the inclusion of the cable car in the tariff is that the public transport
connection to the fortress plateau is already provided by the fortress elevator. The spatial position of
the individual modes of transport to one another is shown schematically in Figure 5-3. In contrast to
the cable car, the fortress elevator has been fully integrated into the transport association since 2012,
the resulting tariff losses are offset by the association (Main and Personnel Office of the City of
Koblenz, 2016); On-site at the fortress elevator, however, the own (more expensive) house tariff is still
applied (Ehrenbreitsteiner Schägaufzug GmbH, 2016). The fortress elevator runs all year round daily
between 6:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. and has a connection to several bus lines at the valley station, which
also serve the city center and Koblenz main train station. The cable car, on the other hand, only
reaches the banks of the Rhine in the area of the old town, where only a single bus line offers
connections. The valley station of the fortress lift can also be reached on foot from the Rhine ferry and
from Ehrenbreitstein train station, although the Rhine ferry has limited operating times, which also
vary seasonally.
Tab. 5-4: Arguments for and against the tariff integration of the cable car in Koblenz
Traffic concept Traffic concept

Reduction of inner-city car Primarily tourist use
traffic Not the highest priority in the area of desirable improvements in
Relief of the critical parking lot public transport in Koblenz
situation in the city center with a
Poor integration into the public transport network, route does not match
cable car as a feeder
the main public transport requirement - this limits the benefits especially
Better connection of for commuters
Fortress plateau and city center Unfavorable location of the valley station for continuous
(growing together)
operation Limited availability (operating times)
Long-term securing of the cable car
(also due to higher passenger
numbers) beyond 2026
Increased availability of the cable car
Relief during the renovation of the
Pfaffendorfer Bridge
Cost / efficiency costs

Economically positive Possibly higher costs for previous regular cable car
effects users only
Cable car is a highly ecological and In the case of integration, higher / non-affordable costs for
efficient means of transport the city due to:
Increased frequency of the adjoining bus line in
the city center
Extension of the cable car operating times
Loss of income compensation in favor of the cable
car operator (even increasing with greater use)
Lack of entitlement to co-payment from the state or
transport association
No financial leeway for another operator model (cable
car in municipal hands)
Fortress plateau Fortress plateau
Vitalization of the fortress plateau & potential Conflict of the additionally required parking spaces in the
through new construction district fortress area with the use of open space
Source: own compilation. The arguments come from publicly available sources (in particular documents from the city council
information system of the city of Koblenz) as well as from the interviews with the mayor of the city of Koblenz and
representatives of the city administration and the transport association.
The main arguments for and against the integration of public transport in the Koblenz cable car
are compared in Table 5-4. Beyond the concrete arguments under the given framework
conditions, the transport association fundamentally criticizes the fact that nobody is involved in
current Koblenz local politics"has the courage to address this issue [the tariff integration of the
cable car, note d. Author]really to force " (Interview with Stephan Pauly) and to perceive
integration as well as other improvements in Koblenz public transport as an essential task of the
city.
5.1.2. Wuppertal Cable Car (ongoing planning)
In a nutshell
● What should be connected?

The cable car will connect the main train station with the university and the Küllenhahn
district.
● What is the reason for the planning?

The bus routes, especially to the university, are heavily used, and efforts are being made to improve
public transport connections.
● Which barriers have to be overcome?

Height difference, dense development, railway line / main station
● How long have the planning been going on?

The idea of the cable car was brought into play in 2012 by a passenger association. It was introduced in
2014 as a key project in a vision for urban development in Wuppertal by 2025. The planning process has
been going on ever since.
● Who are the driving forces?

City of Wuppertal, WSW mobil GmbH (public transport company)

Yes, the cable car should be fully integrated into the Rhein-Ruhr transport association.
● Which technology should be used?Detachable

three-cable gondola, three stations
The idea of a cable car for the connection from the main train station to the university and on to
Küllenhahn in Wuppertal was brought into play in 2012 by the ProBahn passenger association (Stadt
Wuppertal, 2014). The university and the Küllenhahn district are located south of the Elberfeld city
center on a ridge, while the city center and with it the Wuppertal main train station lie in the Wupper
valley. The main train station itself is already at the transition to the valley flank and is a central
transfer point in Wuppertal public transport, and the central bus station is currently being relocated
and rebuilt closer to the railroad tracks.
With "over 300 buses " per day and direction, the lines that connect the main train station with the
university and the neighborhoods in the vicinity are heavily used and further expansion is difficult
(Stadt Wuppertal, 2014, p. 21). The cable car is supposed to bring relief on this relation (Fig. 5-4), for
this purpose also built-up area has to be crossed.
The cable car idea from the original ProBahn concept was later taken up in the “Wuppertal
2025” strategy (Stadt Wuppertal, 2014). This is a strategy for the future development of the
city of Wuppertal, which was developed in several working groups with experts from the
citizenry, external experts and administrative representatives as well as with broad citizen
participation. A number of priorities for the development of Wuppertal up to 2025 were
selected from the submitted proposals and outlined in more detail, among which the cable
car is listed as one of 13 key projects. In particular, the basic feasibility and the low
investment costs compared to alternative improvements for public transport are mentioned
to the university, the cable car should also "In any case [...] part of the public transport and thus in the VRR [
Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr, editor's note. Author]be integrated " (City of Wuppertal, 2014,
P. 22). In the local public transport plan, an improvement in the university’s public transport
connection is not listed as a measure, but the current public transport plan is from 1997 (cf.
Stadt Wuppertal, 1997); the revision of the local transport plan is currently being prepared
(Stadt Wuppertal, 2016c).
Fig. 5-4: Infographic about the Wuppertal cable car

The Wuppertal cable car will run from the main train station in the Wupper valley via the university on the
slope of the valley to the Küllenhahn district on the heights. Source: WSW mobil GmbH (2015)
The municipal transport company WSW mobil GmbH (WSW) had the ropeway project examined
in 2014 in a preliminary study for its technical feasibility (WSW mobil GmbH, 2015). The results of
this study were presented in May 2015 by the externally commissioned engineering office
(Schweiger, 2015). The study concludes that the cable car in the proposed design"is easy to
implement " (Schweiger, 2015, p. 81), she identified a 'preferred variant' from a selection of initial
ideas with different approaches regarding the number and location of the (intermediate)
stations, to which the discussions that have continued since then refer. The preferred variant
includes the valley station directly in the area of the reception building of the main train station,
an intermediate station at the university and the mountain station in the area of the school
center south in the Küllenhahn district. Residential buildings are crossed in particular in Südstadt
(south of the main train station) and in the area of Cläre-Blaeser-Strasse (between the university
and Küllenhahn) (Fig. 5-5).
After determining the technical feasibility, the WSW also commissioned the project
communication to accompany the planning, whereupon an environmental analysis was also
carried out in 2015. To this end, the frame of reference in Wuppertal and the opinions in the
media, including social media, were examined and various discussions were held with those
involved in the process (Anton, Barth, Hampe, Peters & Voßebürger, 2015). The investigation also
states that the further planning of the cable car project is based on the city of Wuppertal and
WSW"Transparent and close to the citizen" take place and the "Make project communication
participative [t] "(Anton et al., 2015, p. 14).
Valley station
Central Station
Middle station
university
Mountain station
Küllenhahn
Fig. 5-5: Planned route of the Wuppertal cable car with crossed residential areas
The figure shows the three planned stations of the cable car, in between it can be clearly seen that
residential buildings are also to be crossed. Source: Image provided by WSW mobil GmbH
Tab. 5-5: Interview partner for the interviews carried out on site in Wuppertal
Dr. Marcel Solar Citizen Participation Office of the City of Wuppertal 04/26/2016
Sabine Schnake Project manager at WSW mobil GmbH 04/26/2016
In March 2016, the Wuppertal City Council made the formal decision to continue the
planning (open-ended) and to support it with measures for public participation (City of
Wuppertal, 2016b), a corresponding online portal is already online (City of Wuppertal,
2016a). The responsibility for the ongoing planning process has thus partly changed from
the WSW to the city, even if the WSW continues to oversee the specific technical planning.
Two interviews were held on site in Wuppertal on the current status of the planning process
(interviewees in Tab. 5-5). The main points from the point of view of the city and the WSW,
which speak as opportunities for Wuppertal for the cable car or as obstacles to its
realization, are listed in Table 5-6.
Tab. 5-6: Opportunities and obstacles for the cable car in Wuppertal
Chances for / by the cable car Obstacles to the cable car
City image Legal hurdles

Visionary project / image improvement Unresolved legal questions regarding overflight of
for the city residential buildings
Increased attractiveness internally and
externally, marketing potential
Location advantage for the university
Suitable for the city with the suspension railway
costs costs
Favorable public transport supplement for Eligibility uncertainty City's
Wuppertal due to possible subsidies
financial distress
Mood in the population Mood in the population
Basically positive mood among the Uncertain support from the population in relation
population and among other actors to the concretizing planning
(especially the university)
Citizens must be "taken along"
Positive political feedback Concrete routing leads to protests from the
affected resident population
Public supporters have so far tended to be political
representatives with rather vague ideas
Public transport concept Public transport concept
Attractive public transport connection Fast Expected reduction in the number of buses
connection to the university
Environment and efficiency
environmental friendliness
Profitability (investment & operation)
Planning process Planning process

Cable car could set positive standards Timely challenging process up to the possible
for citizen participation realization
Political interest in being able to Complex, multi-level coordination processes
implement major projects
depending on the decisions of other actors
Better high-profile communication of the project is
necessary
Source: own compilation. The arguments come from the interviews with representatives of the city of Wuppertal and
WSW mobil GmbH.
The next planning steps include the examination of the legal issues (flying over residential
buildings), a standardized evaluation of the project (with corresponding effects on the
assessment of the eligibility of the state) and the preparation of a citizens' opinion; all three
are to be processed in the course of 2016. If all three points are positive for the cable car,
the actual plan approval procedure will probably begin. If all three points are negative, the
planning will probably not be pursued further. In all cases in between, the Wuppertal City
Council will decide again. On the part of the WSW
These lengthy, interlocking planning steps are sometimes also described as an obstacle by "in
the structures in which we [WSW and the city of Wuppertal, editor's note. Author]work,
sometimes we just [are] incredibly slow " (Interview with Sabine Schnake), which sometimes
offers the project opponents direct attack surface. However, the WSW does not fail to recognize
that a complex transport project such as the cable car requires a lot of coordination in the city-
wide context; Like the city of Wuppertal, they emphasize the importance of good communication
throughout the project. For the city of Wuppertal, the course of the project itself is also an
opportunity"positive standards for citizen participation in the city " (Interview with Marcel Solar).
In the interviews, it was consistently shown that the cable car for Wuppertal is primarily a
transport project to better develop the university and the southern districts, but that as a
visionary project it is also explicitly a building block that could be taken up by city marketing
in order to improve its image Correct Wuppertal as a city in decline.
Citizens' initiatives for and against the Wuppertal cable car
In addition to the previous steps of official planning by the city of Wuppertal (i.e. by the
council of the city of Wuppertal and the city administration) and the WSW, two citizens
'initiatives were founded in 2015 that collect votes for and against the cable car project
behind them (citizens' initiative Pro Seilbahn Wuppertal or . Citizens' Initiative Seilbahnfreies
Wuppertal eV). The main arguments of the cable car advocates refer to the good suitability
of the cable car for the high-volume connection especially to the university, the low
investment costs and additional tourist potential (Citizens' Initiative Pro Seilbahn Wuppertal,
2016; City of Wuppertal, 2014). The main arguments of the cable car opponents relate to the
impairment of residents, the planned reduction in the existing bus service and inadequate
calculation bases for utilization and travel time reduction by the cable car (Bürgerinitiative
Seilbahnfreies Wuppertal, 2015). The central arguments of the citizens' initiatives are also
compared in Table 5-7. The arguments also express the difficulty listed in Table 5-6 that the
ropeway advocates have so far been more concerned with the general advantages of a
ropeway for Wuppertal, while the opponents targeted its specifically planned
implementation early on and pointed out problems. This observation was referred to in the
interview as"Non-simultaneity" (Interview with Marcel Solar), which only now subsides with
the further, more concrete planning steps.
At the initiative of Prof. H. Monheim (see Section 4.1), a discussion took place in February 2016, in
which representatives of both citizens' initiatives and the city of Wuppertal took part. There, urban
ropeway systems were basically discussed with regard to their advantages and disadvantages and the
previous planning process in Wuppertal was analyzed in more detail (Monheim, 2016). As a result, it
was stated in particular that the planning for a cable car, like other public transport projects, should
be derived from a comprehensive needs analysis for additions to the public transport system. In the
specific case of Wuppertal, a definition of the specific corridor was made too quickly, which was
problematic for the further planning process. Monheim therefore suggests a moratorium"Scope for
further, broad-based involvement of the administration with the topic" (Monheim, 2016,
P. 4).
Tab. 5-7: Arguments of the citizens' initiatives for and against the cable car in Wuppertal
Suitability as a means of transport Suitability as a means of transport
Reliable connection, even in difficult Inadequate suitability of cable cars for

weather conditions urban areas
High transport performance for the important
connection to the university
Full integration into the transport association for
barrier-free access
Travel time Travel time
Short travel time Overestimate travel time reduction for many

passengers
Impairments for residents

Residents' privacy casts
shadows
Devaluation of the affected residential areas
Traffic effects Traffic effects

Better connections to the city center from the Deletion / reduction of the
south existing extensive bus offer
Relief of the local road network from car The area of the southern terminus would be P + R
and bus traffic parking for the center
environment environment
environmental friendliness Destruction of nature
Impairment from large construction site
costs costs
Attractive cost-benefit ratio, low Waste of Tax Money
investment costs
Experience / tourism Experience / tourism
Unique driving experience, tourist Questionable tourist added value

attraction
Spectacular technical counterpoint to the
suspension railway
Source: Own compilation based on the information materials available from the citizens' initiatives.
5.1.3. Cologne cable car (planning not being pursued)
In a nutshell
● What should be connected

Cologne Central Station was to be connected to Cologne Messe / Deutz station.
Assumed increase in importance of the Messe / Deutz station for long-distance traffic,
in particular due to the new ICE line Cologne – Rhein-Main. The possibilities of
connecting the two train stations, similar to two airport terminals, were examined.

River crossing (Rhine)
The cable car was examined in a feasibility study in 2009; In 2010 it was decided not to
pursue the cable car option any further.
● Who were the driving forces?
Nahverkehr Rheinland GmbH, Cologne city administration
● Was a tariff integration into local transport planned?Yes
● Which technology should be used?

Detachable three-cable gondola, length about 1,200 m, two stations
Since the completion of the Cologne-Frankfurt long-distance traffic route on the right bank
of the Rhine, there are two alternatives for the ICE trains running in north-south direction in
Cologne: either - and this affects the majority of the connections - they serve the Cologne
main station on the left bank of the Rhine and have to cross the Hohenzollern Bridge twice
or they stay on the right bank of the Rhine and drive to the station Messe / Deutz- (deep). In
particular, the trains that approach the main station and thus tie two lines in each direction,
put a heavy load on the Hohenzollern Bridge (Groneck, 2010). These developments as well
as urban development measures to strengthen the urban areas on the right bank of the
Rhine have led to a debate in Cologne on how to deal with this situation in the future. In
addition to considerations, To convert the Messe / Deutz station into the sole long-distance
train station and to pull all long-distance traffic out of the main station, there were
considerations to connect the two locations of the main station and the Messe / Deutz
station as two terminals of one station. In the course of this debate, the idea of connecting
the two locations with a cable car came into play. This idea goes back above all to the local
public transport authority in Rhineland, who had the feasibility of such a connection checked
in a feasibility study (Groneck, 2010). The transport association was looking for ways to
relieve long-distance traffic in the train station and thus on the Hohenzollern Bridge in order
to create additional capacity for local traffic (Transport Committee of the City of Cologne,
2010; interview with Hartmut Topp).
To connect these two locations, there is already a well-developed range of S-Bahn and
regional trains that run to the two stations in rapid succession. Nevertheless, during peak
hours and at major events, this route is regularly overloaded. The envisaged route is a
classic point-to-point connection: from Breslauer Platz on the north side of Cologne Central
Station, the cable car was to be routed in a straight line across the Rhine, initially parallel to
the railway line to the eastern Deutz station entrance, on the side of which also the entrance
to the exhibition center (Fig. 5-6). The exhibition center is an important area of Cologne's
city policy, its accessibility was another decisive criterion for assessing the overall situation.
Fig. 5-6: Possible cable car route in Cologne between the main train station and the Messe / Deutz train station
Source: Topp, Hofherr and Müller (2009)
Tab. 5-8: Interview partner for the interviews carried out on site in Cologne
Head of Department in the Office for Bridges, Tunnels and Light Rail
Uwe Grimsehl 06/14/2016
Construction of the City of Cologne
Dr. Norbert Reinkober, Managing director or division manager of Nahverkehr

06/14/2016
Holger Fritsch Rheinland GmbH
At the time of the feasibility study, chairman of the

Manfred Waddey 06/14/2016
transport committee of the city of Cologne
Rainer Maria Schäfer Head of STRABAG Real Estate GmbH Cologne 06/14/2016
In the feasibility study, various possible solutions were examined to create an attractive
connection between the two locations. To this end, it was first shown that a short-term
expansion of the existing rail systems is not possible. Furthermore, it was investigated which
measures are needed to strengthen pedestrian and bicycle traffic on this route. In a third
step, the suitability of various alternative means of transport was examined, among which a
cable car performed particularly well. In the feasibility study, the cable car turned out to be a
competitive means of transport with great advantages over other means of transport. In
particular, the direct access without waiting times, the short-term feasibility and the
attractiveness for the passenger were particularly positive for the cable car (Topp et al.
Fast dispatch of the cable car planning
One of the main initiators of the feasibility study was Norbert Reinkober, managing director or
division manager of Nahverkehr Rheinland GmbH (NVR). From his point of view, it was necessary
to objectify the discussion about the two terminals, which is why he commissioned the feasibility
study together with the city administration. However, there was no political mandate for this
study, which from his point of view turned out to be an obstacle in the further process. From the
point of view of the politician Manfred Waddey, the project was"was primarily launched by the
NVR, but met with more skepticism than approval in politics in Cologne and in administration ",
and he continues: "I cannot remember that there would have been a political party that would
have been fire and flame for the project " (Interview with Manfred Waddey). This is also
confirmed by the verbatim minutes from the meeting of the Cologne city council, in which the
feasibility study was presented. The majority of the members are skeptical about a cable car
solution. However, no technical or financial reasons are given as a justification, but rather the
favoring of other measures, such as improving the accessibility of the Deutz train station
(Transport Committee of the City of Cologne, 2010). Manfred Waddey also states this in an
interview:"I still think that the trains go over there every minute and if the platforms are easy to
change, easy to reach, that's okay ".
In the debate in the city council it was also in the room whether the congestion of the Hohenzollern
Bridge was not a pure problem of long-distance traffic and thus a matter of the DB AG and not the city
administration. With regard to the cable car, the then head of the building and planning department
notes that"The result of a feasibility study could also be that a measure will not be pursued " (
Transport Committee of the City of Cologne, 2010, p. 22). He emphasizes that the construction of a
cable car, despite the good results in the assessment, is only in third place of the measures to be
favored, after investments in the existing building and the construction of a comfortable pedestrian
bridge (Transport Committee of the City of Cologne, 2010). Norbert Reinkober also emphasizes that
there were no resolute opponents for this project, but that other projects were initially more
important in the prioritization of projects. Norbert Reinkober and Holger Fritsch emphasize the
technical advantages of the cable car over other systems, but Norbert Reinkober also notes:"And then
the difficulty was then, Cologne itself does not have that, at least not the big problem between these
two points ". He continues:"At some point we said that it was eating up too much time and meant that
we would not be able to advance other projects afterwards, and so we made a decision [...] not to
push the project any further ".
In addition, a competition for the development of the Breslauer Platz, where a cable car station
should have been located, had just ended. The cable car would have required an adjustment to
the first prize of the competition at the time (interview with Hartmut Topp). Uwe Grimsehl says:"
Competitions have already been held there and there was always the question, can I even
integrate something like that, such a building, such a handling building. That was an important
aspect ".
Another argument in favor of the connection between the main train station and the Messe / Deutz train
station was the urban development of the area around the Cologne exhibition center. An important player
in this debate is the project development company MesseCity Cologne, whose site manager Rainer Maria
Schäfer has already campaigned for the Cologne cable car in the past. In the conversation he emphasizes:
"For me this is an optional topic, I don't need the cable car for Messe City, nice-to-have, yes"(Interview with
Rainer Maria Schäfer).
Norbert Reinkober is convinced that he has cleared most of the counter-arguments in numerous
discussions with the parliamentary group chairman, the cathedral builder and economic interest
representatives, but in the end there was a lack of political will and courage to implement this
project. Overall, he observes a political fear of new building projects, triggered in particular by
other major German building projects (e.g. Stuttgart 21, Elbphilharmonie). The central
arguments for and against the Cologne cable car project are also compared in Table 5-9.
Tab. 5-9: Arguments of the citizens' initiatives for and against the cable car in Cologne
Urban development / tourism Urban integration

Contribution to urban development on the right bank of Conflict with the world heritage site of the cathedral /
the Rhine, in particular Messe City and the Deutzer Feld monument protection of the Hohenzollern Bridge /
Rhine panorama
Highlight for the city with an experience value Difficult structural integration of the station on
Breslauer Platz
Attractive city entrance (lighthouse project)
Difficult structural integration of the pillars
Visionary, modern project
practicability practicability
Low space consumption Politics has to be excited first
Relatively quick implementation (especially Politicians try to avoid discourses and are
compared to alternative track expansion) afraid of new building projects
Positive signal from the cathedral builder Mixing of responsibilities
(region / city / DB)
Diversity of social actors to be
involved
Tariff integration must first succeed
Traffic suitability Traffic suitability

High availability and capacity, Stations away from the actual train stations
continuous operation
Hardly any comparable reference cases
Accessibility Possible competition with existing public transport
Tariff integration
There are no technical hurdles that cannot be overcome
Terminal connection Terminal connection

Fulfills the function of the terminal connection and Available offer not bad, just too little
saves time for north-south trains
information
Cable car 'only' as a redundant mode of transport
Conversion of the Messe / Deutz station is more important
costs costs
Good cost-benefit ratio (especially compared to Possibly no additional income
the expansion of other infrastructure across the
Loss of revenue for existing
Rhine)
connections
Basic eligibility The existing Rhine cable car would then be obsolete
Source: own compilation. The arguments come from the interviews with representatives of the city administration and the municipal
council of Cologne, the NVR and the MesseCity Cologne.
5.2. Further practical examples
The following practical examples could not be processed to the same depth as the three
practical examples presented so far due to the available resources. Publicly available
documents and media articles were evaluated for the cases presented here (see Chapter 3).
The different levels of detail in the respective descriptions are due, among other things, to
the fact that this is also about projects that are either currently being planned or that were
canceled or not pursued at different points in the planning process.
5.2.1. Künzelsauer Bergbahn (in operation)
In a nutshell
● What is connected
The Künzelsau mountain railway connects the Künzelsau city center with the Taläcker
district, which is around 170 meters higher.

Development of the new Taläcker district on a plateau
Height difference
The planning took place in the mid-1990s. The mountain railway was opened in 1999.
● Who were the driving forces?City

of Künzelsau
● Is there a tariff integration into other local transport?Yes, the
cable car is integrated into the local transport network.
● Which technology is used?

The Künzelsauer Bergbahn is a funicular in shuttle operation with two cars and a
maximum capacity of 1,000 people per hour and direction.
In the 1990s, the new Taläcker residential area was built in Künzelsau. A funicular was
therefore planned for better access (City of Künzelsau, no year). It is not a cable car - as a
mode of transport that is also not widely established as a means of urban transport (in
Germany) and partly falls under the same legal and operational framework as cable cars,
the Künzelsau example is nevertheless relevant for this report.
In 1997 there was a referendum on the funicular railway (City of Künzelsau, no year), in 1999
the mountain railway was opened and switched to automatic operation in the same year
(Föhl, 2000). The funicular overcomes a distance of a good kilometer and 170 vertical
meters, it runs every 15 minutes with a travel time of 7 minutes and a maximum
Transport capacity of 1,000 people per hour and direction (City of Künzelsau, no year). Since 2005, the
Künzelsau mountain railway has been integrated together with the Künzelsau Citybus in the
Heilbronn region's transport network, which was then expanded to include the Hohenlohekreis (HNV,;
2016b Stadtbauamt Künzelsau, 2015; see also Fig. 5-7). For trips only with the mountain railway, there
are separate tariffs with slight price differences to the otherwise usual tickets for a zone, but
otherwise the mountain railway is fully integrated into the transport network as line 31 in terms of
tariffs and traffic (HNV, 2016a).
Fig. 5-7: Excerpt from the HNV tariff zone plan: Künzelsau
The figure shows the Künzelsauer Bergbahn as an entry in the current tariff zone plan of the Heilbronner
Hohenloher Haller local transport network in comb 811 (Künzelsau). Source: HNV (2015)
5.2.2. IGA cable car Berlin (under construction)
In a nutshell

The cable car serves as a means of access to the International Garden Exhibition
Berlin 2017 and connects the two Berlin districts of Hellersdorf and Marzahn.
The International Garden Exhibition Berlin 2017
● Which barriers have to be overcome?

River crossing (Wuhle), height difference to the Kienberg

The earliest papers are from 2013.
Development company Grün Berlin GmbH, IGA Berlin 2017 GmbH

There are no concrete plans, but the later integration into the Berlin public transport system is the declared goal
of the operator.

Detachable monocable gondola
Fig. 5-8: Sketch of the IGA cable car in Berlin

Source: Leitner AG (no year)
The International Garden Exhibition (IGA) will take place in the Berlin district of Marzahn-
Hellersdorf from April 2017, with an expected 2.4 million visitors. The exhibition grounds connect
the existing Marzahn recreation park ('Gardens of the World'), the Kienberg in the Wuhletal and
the high-rise silhouette of the Marzahn district. The cable car runs on a route from
1.5 km from the IGA main entrance (Neue Grotkauer Straße underground station) across the Wuhletal
to the 102-meter-high summit of the Kienberg to the central area of the exhibition grounds on
Blumberger Damm (Fig. 5-8). The Blumberger Damm has so far only been accessed by an express bus
line. The footpaths to the S-Bahn line 7, which runs further to the west, and to the subway line 5,
which runs eastwards, are long (approx. 30 minutes each). In addition, tram line 18 runs north of the
entrance on Blumberger Damm, about 15 minutes' walk away. The cable car station on Blumberger
Damm is to be built at the southwest entrance of the 'Gardens of the World', which is currently used
as a parking lot for cars and buses. The square should retain its actual function as a parking lot. The
cable car station in Hellersdorf is in the immediate vicinity of the Neue Grotkauer Straße underground
station. In addition to providing access to the exhibition grounds, the cable car also functions as a
connection between Hellersdorf and Marzahn. The number of transports is designed for a maximum
of 3,000 people per hour and a travel speed of 6.0 m / s. There is space for 10 people per cabin
(Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, 2014).
In the discussion of a suitable traffic development concept for the IGA, a solution was
sought that is capable of barrier-free arrival and departure for an average
To provide 15,000 visitors a day without creating structures that cannot be maintained at a
cost-covering level after the exhibition is over. At the same time, however, it was a matter of
using the IGA in order to create permanent solutions that lead to better traffic development
in the area even after the exhibition is over (Bezirksamt Marzahn-Hellersdorf & IGA Berlin
2017 GmbH, 2013). The state-owned development company Grün Berlin GmbH had
therefore already dealt with a number of means of transport in advance
compared to electric buses, rail-bound systems and Segways (interview with Michael Tanzer). The
result of these considerations was a development with a cable car, which was tendered by the
Senate in a Europe-wide award procedure in a competitive dialogue. Leitner AG emerged as the
winner of this tender. It will bear the costs of around € 14 million for construction and operation
itself. According to the State Secretary of the Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development
and the Environment, Christian Gaebler, the favorable offer can only be explained by the fact
that the two leading cable car providers"looking for demonstration projects for cable cars in
cities " (Berlin House of Representatives, 2015b, p. 59). The condition for the building license was
the construction and operation of a cable car system. The operator model provides that funds
from the entrance fees of the IGA are transferred to Leitner AG. After the end of the garden
exhibition, Leitner AG will continue to operate the cable car at its own risk and at the prices it has
set itself for at least three years. If the operation is not economically feasible in the long term,
Leitner AG is entitled to cease operations after these three years, but must then dismantle the
cable car at its own expense without leaving any residue (Berlin House of Representatives,
2015b). The concession agreement with the operator runs until the end of 2033. According to the
Berlin House of Representatives, the possibility of cooperation between the operator of the cable
car and the Berlin-Brandenburg Transport Association is still being examined (Berlin House of
Representatives, 2015a). According to the operator, the goal is to integrate the cable car into
public transport (interview with Michael Tanzer).
The planning for the cable car was accompanied by a public participation process, in which
the planning was reported in a public meeting and residents were able to express their
concerns. The comparison of alternatives by Grün Berlin GmbH previously carried out was
an important preparatory work that enabled the initiators to address not only technical
details, but also concerns about costs, noise and environmental impacts (interview with
Michael Tanzer). The cable car became a vivid experience for those interested by setting up
the gondolas, which are to be used from 2017, at public events (Marzahn-Hellersdorf District
Office & IGA Berlin 2017 GmbH, 2013). Michael Tanzer from Leitner AG describes the
approach in Berlin as ideal (interview with Michael Tanzer).
Tab. 5-10: Arguments for and against the IGA cable car in Berlin
Cable car as a means of transport Cable car as an intervention in nature
environmental friendliness Noise in the evening and at night

Accessibility Clearing trees in highly sensitive
Direct connection to the underground network. Short
landscape areas
Concrete structures of the masts and stations
construction time
Cable car as an attractionSpectacular

attraction panoramic view of the exhibition
grounds
Chance to make Marzahn better known among tourists
Source: Own compilation based on the sources mentioned in the text.

5.2.3. Konstanz cable car (ongoing planning)
In a nutshell

Main station - Döbele - Grenzbachstraße / Europastraße - Mobilpunkt am Seerhein - S-Bahn
(stop Fürstenberg) - Geschwister-Scholl-Schule - University - Mainau island car park

The integrated transport concept of the city of Konstanz envisages increasing the use of public transport at the
expense of the use of motorized vehicles. For this purpose, it should be checked whether a cable car can serve
the high-demand routes. Alternatively, a tram is under discussion.
● Which barriers have to be overcome?Height difference to

the university, river crossing (Rhine)

The cable car connection has been under discussion since 2013.

Lord Mayor Uli Burchardt, City Administration of Konstanz
● Is a tariff integration into the local transport planned?Yes
● Which technology should be used?Not

yet specified
The city of Konstanz has a well-developed city bus system. The development, operation and
clarity of the offer are described as high quality (City of Konstanz, 2013). Although the
means of transport of the environmental network play a central role for the citizens of the
city, commuters and shopping tourists cause increasing traffic flows, which are largely
covered by the motorized vehicle. Especially around the university and the Altstadtring there
are high traffic loads during peak hours (PTV Transport Consult GmbH, 2015).
The idea of a cable car can already be found in the Mobility Master Plan and has been under
discussion since 2013. The (preliminary) plans resulting from the master plan provide for the
stations Hauptbahnhof, Döbele, Grenzbachstraße / Europastraße, Mobilpunkt am Seerhein, S-
Bahn (Fürstenberg stop), Geschwister-Scholl-Schule, University and Mainau Island car park with a
cable car or tram to be connected (Fig. 5-9). The municipal council has commissioned the city
administration to examine the public transport offers waterbus, cable car and tram in an in-
depth variant analysis for their technical feasibility and traffic effect and to provide the
appropriate budget for this (Gemeinderat Konstanz, 2014). Offers for the creation of this variant
analysis are currently being processed. The mayor of Konstanz, Uli Burchardt, first came up with
the idea for a cable car. Above all, he hopes to enhance the attractiveness of the Park & Ride
area"spectacular means of transport " increase and thus induce commuters to switch (Rau,
2013). According to press articles, the municipal councils are open but skeptical about the
mayor's idea (Steinert, 2013).
Fig. 5-9: Possible cable car route for Constance

Own graphic; Map basis:Stamen design under CC BY 3.0 (Map tiles), OpenStreetMap under ODbL(Card
data)
So far, the local council has only dealt with the cable car administratively (above-mentioned
order for variant analysis), a substantive dispute remains to be seen. The mayor still hopes
for an open discourse in urban society. Although the comments in the city's online
newspapers raise many questions such as how construction and operation should be
financed, how many passengers a cable car can transport or how it changes the cityscape, a
clear mood cannot yet be filtered out (Rau, 2013, 2014).
5.2.4. Cable car proposals Zurich (ongoing planning)
In a nutshell

Zurich Zoo - Stettbach, Wollishofen - Tiefenbrunnen, Tiefenbrunnen - Balgrist, Altstetten - ETH
Hönggerberg - Affoltern

Inadequate transport links to the zoo or revision of the regional structure plan of the city
of Zurich
● Which barriers have to be overcome?Height differences,
numerous infrastructures, Lake Zurich

Zoo Zurich - Stettbach: since at least 2008; other connections: first ideas 2016
Zurich Zoo and the municipal council commission to revise the regional structure plan
● Is a tariff integration into the local transport planned?Yes,

integration into the rest of Zurich's public transport is planned.

Zurich Zoo - Stettbach: detachable single-cable gondola lift (maximum 1,500 people per hour
and direction); other connections: no details so far
In the city of Zurich there have been plans for new cable car connections for a long time,
although the lake basin of Lake Zurich could be crossed with cable cars that have since been
dismantled as part of the Swiss national exhibition and the horticultural exhibition (Troxler,
2016). Since at least 2008, the Zurich Zoo has been planning to improve the connection of
the zoo grounds to the public transport network by means of a cable car, based on the
project idea at the time"in 2015 at the latest " should be operational (Zurich Zoo, no year).
The Zurich Zoo is elevated and seen from the city center behind a densely built-up
residential area. A tram line runs through this residential area and ends a few 100 meters
from the entrance to the zoo. On days with a lot of visitors, there is regular exposure to
traffic in the vicinity of the zoo, for which there is only a limited number of parking spaces.
To relieve this situation, a cable car is planned that will connect the zoo over a sparsely built-
up area in a direction away from the city center with a suburban train and tram junction that
is again lower down. The zoo hopes that as a result, visitors will use public transport more in
the future and will already use it to get to the cable car. The planning of the cable car turned
out to be complex,
In 2014, two Zurich students proposed in their bachelor thesis another cable car connection
to relieve commuter traffic from the motorway to the city center, which should lead from
Altstetten to the main train station. A large multi-storey car park was to be built at the
motorway slip road in Altstetten (Hauri & Högger, 2014). The idea made it into the media,
but was questioned in the first statements with regard to its quick implementation and the
traffic relief effect (Sommerhalder, 2014) and was not followed up publicly.
A general revision of the regional structure plan is currently underway. In the course of the
deliberations in the responsible commission of the Zurich municipal council, the proposal, supported
by several parliamentary groups, was introduced for the sub-area of transport to introduce a
number of additional cable car connections and to enter them as corridors in the structure plan
(Municipal Council of the City of Zurich, 2016a). The suggestion was also picked up in the media
(Huber, 2016; Troxler, 2016), explicitly referring to the trend towards the establishment of cable cars
as urban means of transport, which can be seen elsewhere (Troxler, 2016). Difficulties were also
discussed in the deliberations - for example, a representative of the Green Party sees the damage to
the landscape in the lake area as critical and cable cars"to lead over an inhabited area is unrealistic " (
Troxler, 2016) - however, most of the proposed route sections were finally recommended for inclusion
in the structure plan (Municipal Council of the City of Zurich, 2016b). The final decision on the entries
in the structure plan by the government council of the canton of Zurich is still pending.
The cable car routes were specifically proposed as closing gaps in the public transport network of the
city of Zurich. In addition to a cable car over the lake basin from Wollishofen over the lake basin to
Tiefenbrunnen, a cable car from Tiefenbrunnen to Balgrist and a cable car from Altstetten to the
campus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Hönggerberg with an optional extension to
Affoltern, the proposals also include the underground extension of the existing one Rigiblick funicular
to the city center included (Fig. 5-10).
Fig. 5-10: Planned cable cars in the city of Zurich

The zoo cable car, which has been planned for some time, and the new proposals for cable cars from
2016 are shown on the map (Wollishofen – Tiefenbrunnen, Tiefenbrunnen – Balgrist, Altstetten – ETH
Hönggerberg – Affoltern). The also proposed extension of the Rigiblick cable car to Stampfenbachplatz
is a funicular. Source: Troxler (2016)
Basically, due to its topography, Switzerland is a country in which cable cars have been established as
a technical system for a long time, but here, too, tourist use predominates. However, there are
already some cable cars in the high mountains that also have a development function and are partly
fully integrated into the Swiss public transport system in terms of timetables and tariffs, e.g. B.
Rhäzüns – Feldis and Unterterzen – Flumserberg in Graubünden, Mörel – Riederalp, Betten –
Bettmeralp and Fiesch – Fiescheralp in Valais and Stechelberg – Mürren and Meiringen – Hasliberg in
the Bernese Oberland (Swiss Federal Railways, 2015).
Recently there have been initiatives in other cities besides Zurich to use cable cars even
more as an alternative to conventional means of transport for development. In Morges on
Lake Geneva, the connection of a district to be developed, albeit unfavorably located
between the railway line and the motorway, to the train station is planned as a cable car
(Borloz, 2015). In Sion in Valais, a cable car is being planned, which will also have tourist use
as a feeder line towards the ski area, but at the same time will connect the center of Sion
with the town of Les Mayens, which is almost 1,000 meters higher, with today's bus travel
time of 40 minutes should be reduced to 15 minutes by cable car (Kucera, 2015). In the Swiss
parliament, the National Council, the government responded in 2015 to a request from the
Green Liberal parliamentary group,
5.2.5. Elbseilbahn Hamburg (planning discarded)
In a nutshell

Originally, the cable car was supposed to connect the two districts of St. Pauli and
Wilhelmsburg. A stopover was planned at the musical theaters at the port. Due to
port law concerns, however, only the section from St. Pauli to the musical theaters
was up for vote.
In 2013 the International Building Exhibition took place in Wilhelmsburg. This should be
connected to the local traffic with a cable car.

River crossing (Elbe)
The project was introduced for the first time in 2010.
In 2014, the project was rejected by a referendum.
Doppelmayr (cable car manufacturer), Stage Entertainment (musical operator)
● Was a tariff integration into local transport planned?

No, the transport companies have never commented publicly on the project.

Detachable three-cable gondola
The current model of Hamburg's urban development is to focus on the long-neglected districts in the
south of Hamburg, above all Wilhelmsburg. In the course of this, the International Building Exhibition
(IBA) and the International Garden Exhibition (igs) took place there in 2013. As Europe's largest river
island, the element of water has a decisive influence on the district, and the district is also considered
to be heavily polluted by traffic. In the area of passenger transport, both the S-Bahn trains operating
there and the bus lines that take on the detailed development of the district show a very high
occupancy rate (TCI Röhling & PTV Group, 2012).
How exactly the idea of a cable car to cross the Elbe came about can no longer be traced beyond
doubt. It is known that the Doppelmayr company first brought the idea of a cable car from
Hamburg's Landungsbrücken to Wilhelmsburg to the authority for urban development and the
environment in 2007, when the IBA was presented (Citizenship of the Free and Hanseatic City of
Hamburg, 2011). Initially, however, there was no clarity about the feasibility of the project. In 2010 the
plans became more concrete when the musical operator Stage Entertainment got involved in the
project (Citizenship of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, 2011; interview with Hartmut Topp).
The idea of the two companies was to develop the St. Pauli and the grounds of the Hamburg
International Garden Show with a cable car over the Elbe. IBA Hamburg 2013 GmbH was interested in
the project, provided that it was possible to integrate the cable car into the public transport network
(interview with Hartmut Topp). The range from Doppelmayr
and Stage Entertainment planned to build, operate and also dismantle the cable car. The
project was first publicly announced in March 2011.
The project was divided into two sections. The north section should lead from St. Pauli over the
Elbe to the musical tents, from there the south section should cross the southern bank of the
Elbe and thus create a connection to Wilhelmsburg (Fig. 5-11). Since the southern section of the
route was to be assigned to the port area under planning law, the Hamburg port authority
carried out a general preliminary assessment of the port law's admissibility. In this she came to
the conclusion that a cable car, which leads across the port area, was in conflict too"overriding
urban interests " stand and "unwanted compatibility conflicts with the existing port use " cause
(Citizenship of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, 2013). It was also determined that a
connection to the International Garden Show could not be implemented in a timely manner
(Citizenship of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, 2012a). This meant that only the section
from St. Pauli to the musical theaters was still up for discussion.
Fig. 5-11: Sketch of the planned Elbe cable car in Hamburg

The sketch shows the original planning of the cable car in Hamburg with the Elbe-crossing section from St.
Pauli to the musical theaters on the southern bank of the Elbe and on via the port area to Wilhelmsburg.
Source: SpiegelOnline (2011)
The Hamburg Senate did not see any city-wide significance in the project and delegated
responsibility to the local district assembly of Hamburg-Mitte (Citizenship of the Free and
Hanseatic City of Hamburg, 2013). The latter rejected the project on the grounds that the
planned route from St. Pauli to the musical theater would not add any added value for the local
population (Citizenship of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, 2013).
After the political actors rejected the project, a citizens' initiative “Hamburger Seilbahn - Ich
bin für!” Was founded, which about a year later had collected enough signatures for the
project, with the aim of initiating the construction of a cable car after all. Again
the Hamburg-Mitte district assembly voted by a majority against the initiative's request,
which resulted in a referendum (Hamburg-Mitte district assembly, 2014a). All citizens of
Hamburg-Mitte were entitled to vote. In the course of this, a citizens' initiative against the
project was formed. In the referendum, a clear majority of 63% spoke out against the
project (district assembly Hamburg-Mitte, 2014b). The cable car was not built. The main
arguments from the discussion are summarized in Table 5-11.
Tab. 5-11: Arguments for and against the cable car in Hamburg
Efficiency Traffic function

Environmentally friendly means of No means of transport, but musical feeder. No public
transport Efficiency: high capacity rates transport integration
No traffic function
Cable car as a means of transport "not absolutely
necessary "Advised prices too high for commuters
tourism tourism
Tourism magnet Further evidence for the "Event aria " Hamburg's St.
Unique attraction / Pauli as an amusement park
USP
Urban integration
Change in the city panorama / Hamburg skyline
Problematic interventions in the Elbpark
(used by residents as a recreational area)
Project sponsorship Project sponsorship
The ropeway in private project sponsors and Pure profit interests of some entrepreneurs
operators does not involve any financial risk
No privatization of public space ("Who does
the city belong to?")
Generation of additional rental
and tax income
Impairments for residents

Imminent traffic blackout in St. Paulis, as the cable car
attracts massive amounts of car traffic
Resident population affected by passing
gondolas
Since the public announcement in 2011, the project has been preoccupying regional and
national media, Hamburg politics and the public. The project had become a political issue in
which different interests of different actors clashed. The musical operator Stage
Entertainment was primarily concerned with an additional tourist attraction that brings
visitors to its theaters and thus enhances them. The reasoning of the cable car proponents
joins this by referring to the cable car as"Unique tourism magnet" speaks, there is little talk
of the cable car as efficient
Means of transport. At the beginning of the project, however, it was a question of

connecting the heavily traffic-laden district of Wilhelmsburg, which was supported by both
IBA Hamburg 2013 GmbH and individual political parties. After the port authority had de
facto rejected this southern section of the route, these supporters were no longer behind
the project. However, no attempt was ever made to discuss with the port authority and
possibly to resolve the issues that caused the port authority to reject this section of the
route (safety relevance and supports in the port area) (interview with Hartmut Topp).
It is noticeable that none of the analyzed media reports and parliamentary papers contain votes for or
against the project by representatives of the Hamburg Transport Association (HVV), although the
initially planned southern section of the route from the theaters to Wilhelmsburg also appeared
attractive for traffic reasons, especially around the to supplement the S-Bahn connection to
Wilhelmsburg that is operating at the limit of capacity (Citizenship of the Free and Hanseatic City of
Hamburg, 2012b).
5.2.6. Ulm cable car (planning discarded)
In a nutshell

Central station and university
Design and approval planning for a second tram line
Height difference to the university, railway line / main station

In April 2011, the plans were discussed with the city of Ulm for the first time; in summer 2012,
the plans were discarded.
● Who was the driving force?

Berthold Stückle
(Ulm landscape architect and former technical director of the BUGA Koblenz)
unknown
The science city of Ulm is located in the northeast of the city on the so-called Obere Eselsberg
and is home to several development and research centers of large companies, the university and
the technical college, several science parks and affiliated institutes as well as a total of three
clinics. With over 11,500 jobs and over 12,000 students, the science city of Ulm is not only an
important business location, but also a major traffic generator (City of Ulm, 2009). The central
transport project of the Science City master plan drawn up in 2009 is the construction of a light
rail system that connects the Science City to downtown Ulm (City of Ulm, 2009). Of the
The construction of this connection was a political consensus, the exact route was discussed for a long
time.
During the discussions about the new light rail, the landscape architect and former technical
director of the BUGA Koblenz (see section 5.1.1) came up with the idea of running a cable
car from the main train station to the science city as an alternative to building a new tram.
The route he proposed ran from the main station over the tracks of the Deutsche Bahn, then
parallel to the B10 to the Gypsy rock, over the botanical garden in a direct line to the eastern
end of the university grounds (Fig. 5-12). From there, so-called neighborhood buses with
electric or hybrid motors should have taken over the fine-tuning of the area. These should
have been used based on demand and without a fixed timetable (ring traffic). The existing
bus service from the city center to Eselsberg could have been reduced as a result.
Fig. 5-12: Concept sketch for a cable car to Ulm's science city
Red: cable car; yellow: hybrid bus; blue: electric bus; Source: bpm + construction management project management (no year)
Meanwhile, in the summer of 2012, the municipal council decided to initiate a plan approval procedure for
the new light rail line without first comparing the variants. This meant the end of the cable car. In May 2015,
the construction of the new line 2 was decided by a majority of the municipal council. Only one of the 39
MPs was against the building, another abstained. The risks of the construction were too great for both of
them, and there were also complaints that alternatives such as the cable car had not been adequately
examined. The new tram is the most expensive transport project in the history of Ulm. In the last few years
there have been repeated reports about price increases. According to the current status, the project will
cost around € 220 million (Thierer, 2015). Stadtwerke Ulm / Neu-Ulm, as the operator of the public transport
system in Ulm, clearly positioned itself in the debate for the construction of new trams (Südwest Presse,
2012a), as did the then Mayor of Construction Alexander Wetzig (Südwest Presse, 2012b). The main
arguments for planning the ropeway in Ulm are summarized in Table 5-12.
Tab. 5-12: Arguments for and against the cable car in Ulm
Cable car as a means of transport Cable car as a means of transport
High conveying capacity Point-to-point connection not suitable for

Accessibility area-wide traffic development
Short construction period (1.5 - 2 years from planning)
costs costs
Low operating costs Planning and Supplementary bus offers would have to be
retained, which reduces the profitability
construction at a fixed price
External impact acceptance
Image gains for the city Too many transfers reduce

acceptance and increase travel times
Unique selling point for the city with
marketing side effects
5.2.7. Trier cable car (planning discarded)
In a nutshell

Central locations in the valley, either downtown (Porta Nigra) or Trier main train station with
university campus and new building area on the Tarforster Plateau

The public transport axes (bus routes) on the existing roads are at their capacity limit.
● What barriers had to be overcome?Height

difference, railway line / main station
The first considerations were made in the 1970s, and the idea was taken up again in
the 1990s. In the mobility concept of the city of Trier from 2013, the cable car is no
longer mentioned.
Institute for Applied Geography / Department of Spatial Development and Regional Planning of the
University of Trier, Doppelmayr (cable car manufacturer)

Stadtwerke Trier have spoken out against the project.
The public transport in Trier is operated exclusively by city buses, which open up all the
districts of the city, but sometimes only run sporadically in school traffic. Central hub of the
City buses is the Porta Nigra, during off-peak times it is the main train station. Stadtwerke
Trier is the sole operator of this offer. The condensed city center is located in the Moselle
valley, while a key residential and workplace focus of the city, with the university campus
and the science park, is on the Petrisberg. Its two main access roads are sometimes very
steep and their capacity is limited. At peak times, public transport serves the university on
the most popular axis in the city bus network with 22 trips per hour. Nevertheless, the roads
to the Tarforster Plateau are regularly congested (Huber-Erler & Hofherr, 2013).
Fig. 5-13: Sketch of the route for the cable car planning in Trier
The S1 cable car connects the Porta Nigra via three intermediate stations (main station, university campus II,
university campus I) with the Tarforst district. The cable car variants S2a and S2b connect the main station via
two intermediate stations (Petrisberg and Campus II) with the university. Source: Spiekermann AG
Consulting Engineers (2012)
First considerations to improve the connection to Petrisberg go back to the 1970s. Even
then, in addition to approaches for individual and bus transport, a cable car system was also
proposed, but this was initially not pursued any further. Due to the bottlenecks on the
access roads to Petrisberg, the considerations for a new direct connection from the main
train station to the high-altitude districts, independent of individual traffic, were taken up
again by the administration and city council at the end of the 1990s (Stadt Trier, 2012). In
2003, a standardized evaluation of the introduction of a so-called duo bus was carried out,
which could have operated both in overhead line operation and with diesel drive
(Spiekermann AG Consulting Engineers, 2012). This also did very well in the variant
comparison, could not be realized due to a lack of funding (Stadt Trier, 2009). An update of
the study was initiated in 2009. In addition to various bus variants with alternative drive
technologies, this also included a cable car solution (Fig. 5-13). the
Meaningfulness should be assessed in a supplementary potential analysis (DB International

GmbH, 2009). This comes to the conclusion that a new bus route has the best traffic effect
compared to the cable car variants, but expressly recommends a review of the costs for all
variants, without which a final recommendation would not seem sensible (Spiekermann AG
Consulting Engineers, 2012). On the basis of these reports, the city council decided in 2012
not to pursue a ropeway solution any further. However, due to the lack of financing options,
the city council has for the time being refrained from building a new independent bus route
(City of Trier, 2012). In the mobility concept of the city of Trier from 2013, the construction of
a new direct connection is only mentioned as a long-term measure (after 2025) (Huber-Erler
&
Two opinion-forming actors appeared in public during the planning process. The Stadtwerke
Trier appeared primarily as a critic of the project, the employees around the Trier Institute
for Spatial Development and Communication (under the direction of Prof. H. Monheim) as
supporters of the project. The main arguments of both parties can be found in Table 5-13.
Tab. 5-13: Arguments for and against the cable car in Trier
Increase in the attractiveness of the public transport Loss of attractiveness of the public transport
systemNo waiting times as there is a continuous conveyor. system:Extended waiting times if the cabins are full,
Accessibility: Bicycles can be taken along extended entry and exit routes
The traffic system is confusing due to
various vehicle systems
Urban integrationMinimally Monument preservation
invasive means of transport Route to Porta Nigra (landmark of the city)

critical
Fine-tuning Fine-tuning
District buses that are required anyway, as well as the Increased transfers (from bus to cable car
possibility of taking bicycles with you and back to the neighborhood bus)
sufficient for district development
Cable car would only have 6 stops, bus 12
the cable car could also attract bus
Insufficiently thought-out overall concept
routes that are currently in short supply
(integration of the cable car into public transport)
costs costs
Low operating costs through Deficient feeder traffic would lie with municipal utilities,
automated operation while operators of the cable car
most profitable route
Fast implementation
High transport capacity
Source: own compilation. The arguments come from interviews of the Trierischer Volksfreund with the authorized
signatory of Stadtwerke Trier, Frank Birkhäuer (Hormes, 2010b) and the raumkom managing directors Heiner Monheim
and Christian Muschwitz (Hormes, 2010a) as well as a statement regarding the ropeway project of raumkom (Monheim &
Muschwitz, 2010).
The criticism of the system comparison by DB International GmbH (2009) between a cable
car solution and the various bus variants is strikingly clear. This mainly refers to the fact that
the technical details of the vehicle are discussed and presented in detail in the study, but the
basic conceptual questions of the routing, building sizes and feasibility are not mentioned or
only minimally mentioned.
5.3. Other projects not considered in Germany

In addition to the projects presented, the authors are aware of the other projects and project
ideas for urban cable cars in Germany listed in Table 5-14, which could not be examined in more
detail. However, the table gives a good overview of the variety of cable car connections that have
already been proposed.
Tab. 5-14: Cable car projects not considered in Germany
city Suggested route (s) status
Aachen Alternative to the campus Not followed up

train (tram)
Berlin Zoo station - Potsdamer Platz Not followed up
Bochum Several connections, including from the Not followed up

city center to the Ruhrpark and the Ruhr
University
Bonn From Venusberg with various Ongoing investigations

connection points to the train and
light rail over the Rhine
Dusseldorf Connection to the Bergisches Quarter Ongoing investigations
Ingolstadt Nordbahnhof - Audi factory premises - Not followed up

freight transport center
Ludwigsburg Ludwigsburg - Markgröningen Not followed up
Mannheim / Ludwigshafen Crossing the Rhine, among other things, to Ongoing investigations
relieve traffic during road renovation
Marburg City center - Lahnberge Not followed up

(University and University Hospital)
Munich Thalkirchen - Zoo - Harlaching Not followed up

Harthof - Garching-Hochbrück Not followed up
Engschalking - Riem - Fair Ongoing investigations
Wolfsburg Phaeno - Allerpark Plaza Not closely followed

64
6. Conclusion
This work report deals with the question of why aerial cableways have so far not been
considered as a planning option in German public transport and why the project ideas that
have existed in the past have often not been pursued further and brought to a conclusion.
This conclusion summarizes the findings that can be obtained from the interviews with
experts from transport and cable car planning on the one hand (see Chapter 4) and the
practical examples examined on the other (see Chapter 5).
The work report makes it clear that aerial cableways definitely have the potential to evade
structural and, in some cases, financial restrictions of urban transport planning. The
existence of a large number of project ideas for urban aerial ropeways in Germany - even if
most of them have failed, were not pursued or are still in the very early planning stages -
indicates that this is also attracting increasing attention. In some laws, cable cars are now
explicitly mentioned as a possible means of transport in public transport and for some
specific traffic challenges in cities, cable cars are suggested by the planners as an option to
be examined. In the following, the remaining challenges that are now emerging in more
detail are outlined.
Routines of traffic planning & established actors in German public transport
So far, aerial ropeways have not been part of the established repertoire of transport planners, public
transport operators and political decision-makers. In discussions with experts it became clear again
and again that cable cars - at least in Germany - hardly ever occur in engineering training in the
transport sector. There is a lack of specialist literature, practical experience and comparative cases
and reference values for the concrete planning and evaluation of possible projects.
The transport companies in particular play a central role in establishing a new means of
transport. It is you who are responsible for operation and planning. In Germany they have a
wide range of tried and tested, high-performance options at their disposal. In planning,
traffic problems are therefore approached almost naturally using approaches that are
already known and tried and tested. Ropeways have long been ignored as an approach to
solving urban traffic problems; it is only recently that it has been noticed that they are
technically proven and, depending on their design, highly efficient systems. This
'inexperience' is certainly central to ropeway projects, but not necessarily specific to the
ropeway. Other innovations in public transport are also taking off or are only slowly gaining
acceptance. This applies to organizational innovations such as the establishment of
transport associations or the introduction of electronic ticket systems as well as to technical
innovations such as the priority given to light-signal systems for light rail systems. Likewise,
not all existing plans are actually implemented for other means of transport, be it road
expansion projects or tram extensions. Nevertheless, there are some uncertainties with
cable car projects that do not exist in this combination with other projects: The use of the
3rd level and the associated legal framework for dealing with private property, the difficult-
to-assess media coverage and the possible resistance of the population,
6. Conclusion 65
Nevertheless, contrary to the frequently attested skepticism of transport companies about

cable cars, the interviewees from this area were very open to the new means of transport. In
the discussions, the traffic efficiency, the marketing potential and the favorable cost-benefit
ratio were explicitly emphasized. The experts showed great confidence that cable cars will
be part of the public transport systems in Germany in the future.
Adaptability of ropeway projects to urban transport needs

The ropeway projects that have been observed so far have often entered the discussion completely
independently of the other strategic transport planning in the respective cities. Often there is an
external reason for these projects, such as larger exhibitions or sporting events. In these cases, the
transport companies are often not involved in the discussions about the projects because they are
either not asked or are not interested. Because the planning takes place on an occasion-driven basis,
it sometimes - unintentionally - bypasses the actual needs that would actually exist for the expansion
of public transport services in the respective city. It was in Hamburg, for example, where the cable car
project could initially have resulted in better connections to the Wilhelmsburg district. It was only
when the route was shortened to the Elbe crossing that it finally became a purely touristic project with
no relevance to the transport companies. In Koblenz, on the other hand, the cable car was built, but
the planning, which has been optimized for the development of the federal horticultural show areas,
is now less suitable for public transport integration. It is quite possible that planning that would have
been geared towards future involvement from the start would be more viable today in this regard.
According to experts, a really good fit of urban ropeways to the transport needs in urban
areas can only be achieved if ropeways are included as an equal option in the catalog of
planning options in transport planning. This includes a well-founded comparison of variants,
which reveals the advantages and disadvantages of different transport options. Cable cars
should be available as a possibility in the back of your mind when a city is faced with a traffic
challenge and the type of public transport that can be used to meet this challenge is being
investigated, e.g. how a facility with large traffic volumes can be optimally connected.
Major events can also offer opportunities to make lasting contributions to urban development. If
they are not viewed in isolation, their transport development can be planned from the outset in
such a way that afterwards it also enables improvements in public transport in the long term.
Urban integration of urban cable cars

Cable cars use the so far mostly 'unused' third level in the urban traffic area. This is a direct
difference to other means of transport, which automatically leads to the emergence of new,
different questions and challenges with regard to the urban integration of the cable car
routes. Even if cable cars can create direct connections that are shorter than with alternative
means of transport, and cable cars require comparatively little infrastructure on the ground,
they also cross private properties and can affect their users in different ways. Conflicts with
the privacy of users play an important role here, and although in some cases technical
solutions such as automatic clouding of the
6. Conclusion 66
Window panes are available, other impairments such as column foundations or shadows
cannot be dismissed out of hand. Another important discussion concerns listed buildings,
protected city backdrops (e.g. through world cultural heritage) and landscape protection. On
the other hand, it should be noted that where the cable car is planned as an option to meet
an existing need for public transport, the cable car may have fewer impairments compared
to other planning alternatives - but these may and must be affected by other people must
also be taken into account.
In addition to the difficulties and concrete resistance, however, many projects also explicitly call for an
upgrading of the cityscape through the potential cable car. B. in all more closely examined case
studies Koblenz, Wuppertal and Cologne. In Koblenz, the cable car, which is itself seen as a possible
impairment of the Middle Rhine Valley World Heritage, makes it more visible and tangible at the same
time. In Wuppertal, with its difficult economic situation, the cable car is seen as a lighthouse project
for active future urban development. In Cologne, too, there was the view that the cable car could
become a magnet as an attractive entrance gate into the city and also make the World Heritage
Cathedral tangible in a special way.
There remains a dichotomy in this area between local impact and impairment on the one hand and
possible signaling and image enhancement for the cities as a whole and the respective public
transport in particular on the other.
Resistance to major projects as a challenge beyond cable cars

A challenge that goes beyond the specific topic of urban cable cars and was therefore not the
focus of the investigation from the beginning only arose during the course of the project. The
question arose again and again of how to deal with the increasing and rapidly emerging
resistance to infrastructure projects of all kinds. With surprising regularity, both on the part of
the experts questioned and on the part of the practical examples, the interviewees referred to
the experiences to be drawn from the Stuttgart 21 rail project, according to which today no
infrastructure project can do without a counter-citizens' initiative.
According to the unanimous opinion of the interview partners, the problem is not the justified and
constructive criticism with which project opponents can often achieve important and meaningful
improvements to the projects. Rather, a fundamental opposition to infrastructure projects of any kind
appears problematic, which cannot be overcome even with constructive debate and early
participation. It was emphasized several times that, in anticipation of possible resistance, politicians
no longer dare to tackle projects at all, and thus, for example, leave the development in the transport
sector to its own devices and no longer have a creative impact.
With regard to the cable car, it is all the more important here not to throw projects unframed in
the room, but to use the cable car as an option in solid variant comparisons that respond to a
specific traffic challenge. The challenge at hand and the comparison of variants can then provide
arguments as to why it is worth standing up for the project. Closely connected with this are the
need for detailed and transparent communication and the appropriate involvement of the public
from the germination of the project idea to the opening of the cable car.
67
7. Outlook
This work report contributes to a better understanding of the technical possibilities of urban
cable cars and also explicitly takes into account the planning requirements that appear to be
essential for a successful implementation. The participants in the discussion were selected
experts and practitioners who have or had to do with cable car projects in the course of their
professional work. On the one hand, this offers a deep insight into previous practice, previous
experience and the handling of cable car projects from a professional point of view, but does not
yet reflect social positions.
In the coming months we will therefore identify three study areas in Baden-Württemberg
for which a cable car appears to be potentially suitable. In addition to the previous
considerations, we will include two additional groups of actors who have been considered so
far, but have not yet been asked about their points of view:
● Actors in transport planning who have not necessarily had anything to do with cable cars in the
course of their work and
● the local population.
At this point in time it is certain that the city of Konstanz will be one of these areas: there are
already advanced considerations for a cable car system and the city administration has
expressed great interest in carrying out this study. Furthermore, the Stuttgart region is
being considered, some connecting axes promise to be a suitable study area due to the
topographical location and the currently still existing traffic gaps. We are not yet aware of
any specific plans for urban cable car connections in the Stuttgart area. A third study area is
currently still being coordinated with the project partners, and some cities have already
expressed interest in being considered as an investigation area.
So-called implementation scenarios are being developed for the three study areas, which
serve to illustrate various operator models and operating concepts, as well as to estimate
the traffic, macroeconomic and ecological effects. These scenarios are then discussed with
both citizens and professional actors on site. Scenarios are a central instrument in
technology assessment. They serve to describe possible future developments, different
ways there and the driving factors behind them as well as their respective effects (Grunwald,
2010).
From the discussion of these scenarios with practitioners and the population, we hope for clarity
about the desirability and plausibility of conceivable developments. In contrast to the practical
examples examined so far, in which certain frameworks were already set by the history of the
development of the projects, the implementation scenarios allow a more open entry into the
discussion and the free addressing of challenges through the variation of conceivable
development lines.
In the Stuttgart region, in addition to the qualitative analysis, there is also a quantitative
analysis using an agent-based simulation model (mobiTopp).
7. Outlook 68
Against the background of the results of this work report and in relation to the upcoming
involvement of the above-mentioned actors, the following essential questions arise:
● How can a cable car be systematically integrated into the city-wide transport system? What
are suitable operator models and how can they be implemented?
● How does a possible cable car affect the city's entire range of transport? Who will
benefit and who would be burdened?
● What difficulties / opportunities do the actors involved see in the various scenarios?
● What difficulties / opportunities does the population see?
Are there regional, local or depending on the living situation differences?
● How can the planning process be made transparent and constructive?
Dealing with these questions will enable a better assessment of the potential of urban cable
cars as a contribution to more sustainable mobility in Baden-Württemberg as well as the
identification of important levers with which the consideration of the additional mobility
option can be promoted.
69
Interview directory
date location Interlocutor Institution / company
Prof. Dr. Heiner Monheim

03/03/2016 Bonn University of Trier
(Emeritus)
Ekkehard Assmann; Wolfram Auer;

Wolfurt Doppelmayr cable cars
03/15/2016 Günter Troy; Catherine Bernard; Julia
(Austria) GmbH
Summer; Dr. Johannes Fiedler
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Hartmut Topp Technical University

03/23/2016 Kaiserslautern
(Emeritus) Kaiserslautern
04/14/2016 Koblenz Arndt Schwab City administration
04/14/2016 Koblenz Prof. Dr. Joachim Hofmann-Göttig Lord Mayor
Verkehrsverbund Rhein-
04/14/2016 Koblenz Stephan Pauly
Moselle
executive department
04/26/2016 Wuppertal Dr. Marcel Solar
Citizen participation
04/26/2016 Wuppertal Sabine Schnake WSW mobil GmbH
Arno Schweiger, Anna Schweiger,

05/31/2016 Sonthofen Schweiger engineering office
Florian Schweiger, Patrick Maier
Transport Committee of the

06/14/2016 Cologne Manfred Waddey
city Cologne
Dr. Norbert Reinkober, Local traffic Rhineland

06/14/2016 Cologne
Holger Fritsch GmbH
STRABAG Real Estate

06/14/2016 Cologne Rainer Maria Schäfer
GmbH Cologne
Office for bridges, tunnels and

06/14/2016 Cologne Uwe Grimsehl
light rail construction
06/16/2016 Munich Michael Tanzer Leitner AG
The interviews are listed chronologically according to the interview date.

70
List of figures
Fig. 2-1: Basic types of cable cars ............................................... ........................................... 7
Fig. 2-2: Schematic sketch of possible station configurations of a circulating cable car ............................ 8
Fig. 3-1: Interviews on the practical examples: Simplified structure laying technique ............................ 18
Fig. 5-1: Overview map of urban ropeway projects in Germany ....................................... 29
Fig. 5-2: Route sketch of the Koblenz cable car .............................................. ................................ 32
Fig. 5-3: Excerpt from the network map of Koblenz public transport in the area of the cable car .............................. 35
Fig. 5-4: Infographic about the Wuppertal cable car .............................................. ................................... 38
Fig. 5-5: Planned route of the Wuppertal cable car with crossed residential areas ................ 39
Fig. 5-6: Possible cable car route in Cologne between the main train station and the Messe / Deutz train station .... 44
Fig. 5-7: Excerpt from the tariff zone plan of the HNV: Künzelsau .......................................... ........ 48
Fig. 5-8: Sketch of the IGA cable car in Berlin ............................................ ............................................... 49
Fig. 5-9: Possible cable car route for Constance .............................................. ................................. 52
Fig. 5-10: Planned cable cars in the city of Zurich ............................................ ............................... 54
Fig. 5-11: Route sketch of the planned Elbseilbahn Hamburg ............................................. ............ 56
Fig. 5-12: Concept sketch for a cable car to Ulm Science City ....................................... 59
Fig. 5-13: Route sketch for the cable car planning in Trier ............................................ ................ 61
71
List of tables
Tab. 4-1: Interview partner of the expert interviews carried out (planning) ............................. 20
Tab. 4-2: Interview partner of the expert interviews carried out (cable car manufacturer) ............. 26
Tab. 5-1: Overview table of the examined practical examples .............................................. ........... 30
Tab. 5-2: Interview partner for the interviews carried out on site in Koblenz ......................... 32
Tab. 5-3: Arguments for and against the cable car in Koblenz .......................................... ................. 33
Tab. 5-4: Arguments for and against the tariff integration of the cable car in Koblenz ........................... 36
Tab. 5-5: Interview partner for the interviews carried out on site in Wuppertal .................... 39
Tab. 5-6: Opportunities and obstacles for the cable car in Wuppertal ........................................ 40
Tab. 5-7: Arguments of the citizens' initiatives for and against the cable car in Wuppertal .................... 42
Tab. 5-8: Interview partner for the interviews carried out on site in Cologne .............................. 44
Tab. 5-9: Arguments of the citizens' initiatives for and against the cable car in Cologne ............................... 46
Tab. 5-10: Arguments for and against the IGA cable car in Berlin ........................................ ................ 50
Tab. 5-11: Arguments for and against the cable car in Hamburg .......................................... ............... 57
Tab. 5-12: Arguments for and against the cable car in Ulm .......................................... ....................... 60
Tab. 5-13: Arguments for and against the cable car in Trier .......................................... ...................... 62
Tab. 5-14: Cable car projects not considered in Germany ............................................. ............ 63
72
Bibliography
Berlin House of Representatives. (2015a).IGA, qQuo vVadis I? I?[sic] Written question from MPs Dr. Turgut
Altug and Silke Gebel (GREEN) (Printed matter 17/17316), Berlin. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available under
http://pardok.parlament-berlin.de/starweb/adis/citat/VT/17/SchrAnfr/s17-17316.pdf
Berlin House of Representatives. (2015b, November 18).Minutes of contents of the main committee. 17th legislative term. 93.
meeting, Berlin. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available underhttp://

www.parlamentberlin.de/ados/17/Haupt/protokoll/h17-093-ip.pdf
Alshalalfah, B., Shalaby, A., Dale, S. & Othman, FMY (2012). Aerial Ropeway Transportation Systems in the
Urban Environment: State of the Art. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 138 (3), 253-262.
Ammoser, H. & Hoppe, M. (2006). Glossary Transportation and Transportation Sciences: Definitions and
Explanations of terms used in transport and communications (Contributions to the discussion from the Institute for
Economics and Transport No. 2/2006). Accessed on July 12, 2016. Available under
http://hdl.handle.net/10419/22704
Office for Urban Development and Building Regulations of the City of Koblenz. (2012).Opinion on application no.
AT / 0024/2012, application by the CDU council group "Concept for the integration of the cable car and the inclined elevator
in public transport" (ST / 0068/2012), Koblenz. Accessed on April 6, 2016. Available underhttp://www.koblenz.de/
verwaltung_politik/buergerinfo/vo0050.php?__kvonr=13743&voselect=2144
Anton, J., Barth, J., Hampe, J., Peters, I. & Voßebürger, P. (2015). A cable car for Wuppertal? Results of the
Environment analysis. Accessed on December 16, 2015. Available underhttp://www.seilbahn2025.de/projekt-seilbahn.html
Bergerhoff, J. & Perschon, J. (2012). Urban Ropeways as Part of Sustainable Transport Networks in Developing
Countries. Trialogue (3), 44-49.
District Office Marzahn-Hellersdorf; IGA Berlin 2017 GmbH. (2013, February 13).Public dialogue on
International Garden Exhibition Berlin 2017. Documentation, Berlin. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available
underhttp://www.iga-berlin-2017.de/fileadmin/iga/images/downloads/
130320_IGA_Dokumentation_Burgerforum.pdf
District assembly Hamburg-Mitte. (2014a, June 16).Citizens' initiative "Hamburger Seilbahn". Referral to
District assembly according to § 7 BezAbstDurchfG, Hamburg. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available under
https://sitzungsdienst-hamburg-mitte.hamburg.de/bi/to020.asp?TOLFDNR=1004437
District assembly Hamburg-Mitte. (2014b, September 4th).Final result of the referendum

"Hamburger Seilbahn - I'm for it!" (Printed matter 21-0133), Hamburg. Available under
https://sitzungsdienst-hamburg-mitte.hamburg.de/bi/vo020.asp?VOLFDNR=1004474
Borloz, E. (2015, March 25). Morges veut passer par les airs pour désengorger les routes.24 heures. access at
04/19/2016. Available underhttp://www.24heures.ch/vaud-regions/la-cote/Morges-veut-passer-par-lesairs-
pour-desengorger-les-routes/story/29737087
Bpm + site management project management. City cable car Ulm. Concept sketch, Ulm. Accessed on July 25,
2016. Available underhttp://www.ulmer-seilbahn.de/media/dlds/cable_car_ulm_flyer_A4.pdf
BUGA project office. (2007).Planning approaches and cost conception of the overall measure BUGA 2011
(Resolution draft BV / 0424/2007), Koblenz. Accessed on February 18, 2014. Available underhttp://
www.koblenz.de/verwaltung_politik/buergerinfo/vo0050.php?__kvonr=5276&voselect=802
Federal Council of Switzerland. (2015).Federal Council opinion on interpellation 15.4106: Are aerial cableways
possible in Swiss cities?, Bern. Accessed on April 19, 2016. Available underhttps://
www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20154106
Bibliography 73
Alliance 90 / The Greens Baden-Württemberg & CDU Baden-Württemberg. (2016).Baden-Wuerttemberg

design: Reliable. Consistent. Innovative. Coalition agreement between Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen Baden-
Württemberg and the CDU Baden-Württemberg 2016 - 2021. Draft.Accessed on May 2nd, 2016. Available under
https://www.gruene-bw.de/app/uploads/2016/05/GrueneBW-Koalitionsvertrag-2016-Entwurf.pdf
Citizens' initiative Pro Seilbahn Wuppertal. (2016).We want the Wuppertal cable car! Accessed on April 6, 2016.
Available under http://www.pro-seilbahn-wuppertal.de/
Citizens' initiative Seilbahnfreies Wuppertal. (2015).Wuppertal doesn't need a cable car, Wuppertal. Accessed on April
6, 2016. Available underhttp://seilbahnfreies-wuppertal.de/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/
Broschuere_26-10-15.pdf
Citizenship of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. (2011, March 29).Plans for a cable car between St. Pauli
and Wilhelmsburg. Written small question from the Member of Parliament Dr. Joachim Bischoff (DIE LINKE) from
03/23/11 and answer from the Senate (Printed matter 20/77), Hamburg. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available
underhttps://www.buergerschaft-hh.de/ParlDok/dokument/32373/pl%C3%A4ne-f%C3%BCr-eine-seilbahn
Zwischen-st-pauli-und-wilhelmsburg.pdf
Citizenship of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. (2012a, June 26).Cable car from St. Pauli via Steinwerder
to Wilhelmsburg. Written small question from the Member of Parliament Dr. Thomas-Sönke Kluth (FDP) from
06/19/12 and answer from the Senate (Printed matter 20/4511), Hamburg. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available
underhttps://www.buergerschaft-hh.de/ParlDok/dokument/37111/seilbahn-von-st-pauli-%C3%BCbersteinwerder-
nach-wilhelmsburg.pdf
Citizenship of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. (2012b, October 23).Cable car to the south - connection
to get to Wilhelmsburg. Request of the deputy Dr. Till Steffen, Jens Kerstan, Katharina Fegebank, Anja Hajduk, Farid
Müller (GREEN) and parliamentary group on Drs. 20/5519(Printed matter 20/5606), Hamburg. Accessed on July 25,
2016. Available underhttp://www.buergerschaft-hh.de/ParlDok/dokument/38291/seilbahn-inden-s%c3%bcden-
%e2%80%93-verbindungen-nach-wilhelmsburg-schaffen.pdf
Citizenship of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. (2013, September 24).Cable car in Hamburg. Communication of the
Senate to the citizenship (Printed matter 20/9439), Hamburg. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available under
https://www.buergerschaft-hh.de/ParlDok/dokument/42472/seilbahn-in-hamburg.pdf
CDU council group Koblenz. (2012).Application of the CDU council group: Concept for the integration of the cable car and the
Inclined elevator in public transport. Template no. AT / 0024/2012, Koblenz. Accessed on April 6, 2016. Available
underhttp://www.koblenz.de/verwaltung_politik/buergerinfo/to0040.php?__ksinr=2144
Clément-Werny, C. & Schneider, Y. (2012). Transport by cable aérien en milieu urbain (Reférences Collection
No. 125). : CERTU. Accessed on October 27, 2014. Available underhttp://www.certu-catalogue.fr/transport-
parcable-aerien-en-milieu-urbain.html
DB International GmbH. (2009).Update of the Petrisberg (Trier) study. Accessed on February 18, 2014. Available
under https://info.trier.de/bi/vo020.asp?VOLFDNR=5305
Ehrenbreitsteiner Inclined Elevator GmbH. (2016).Service. Accessed 04/04/2016. Available under

http://www.schraegaufzug-ehrenbreitstein.de/Service/service.html
EVM Verkehrs GmbH. (2015).Line overview map Koblenz. Accessed 04/04/2016. Available under
http://www.evm.de/evm/Homepage/Verkehr/Liniennetz%20und%20Umsteigehaltestellen/
EVM Verkehrs GmbH. (2016).Tickets, tariffs and sales points. Accessed on July 28, 2016. Available under
http://www.evm.de/evm/Homepage/Verkehr/Fahrkarten%20und%20Tarife/
Fitz, R. (2011). The success story of the ropeway in Coblence. More than 4.6 million passengers transported in 6
months. Presentation at the OITAF Congress 2011 in Rio de Janeiro.Accessed on February 18, 2014. Available under
http://www.oitaf.org/Kongress%202011/Referate/Doppelmayr%20Fitz.pdf
Bibliography 74
Flick, U. (2005). Qualitative social research. An introduction(3 ed.). Reinbek: Rowohlt paperback.
Föhl, K. (2000). Künzelsau mountain railway. Available under

http://www.standseilbahn.de/kuenzelsau/index1d.html
Gandner, C. (2007). Cable car to the fortress. BUGA 2011 current.Accessed on February 18, 2014. Available under
http://www.koblenz.de/bilder/buga_aktuell1.pdf
Opponent, M. & Schwedes, O. (2014). The traffic of the Leviathan. On the historical genesis of the urban
Transport in the context of services of general interest. In O. Schwedes (ed.),Public mobility. Perspectives for
sustainable transport development(2nd ed., Pp. 47-68). Wiesbaden: Springer specialist media.
City Council of the City of Zurich. (2016a).Substantial minutes of the 92nd meeting of the Zurich City Council.
03/30/2016, Zurich. Accessed on April 19, 2016. Available underhttp://
www.gemeinderatzuerich.ch/sitzungen/protocol/
City Council of the City of Zurich. (2016b).Substantial minutes of the 97th meeting of the Zurich City Council.
04/01/2016, Zurich. Accessed on June 1st, 2016. Available underhttp://
www.gemeinderatzuerich.ch/sitzungen/protocol/
Constance City Council. (2014, January 30).Examination of public transport offers waterbus, cable car and tram
to relieve traffic in the city center - motion of the SMA parliamentary group from October 21, 2013 (Template
2013-0061), Konstanz. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available underhttp://www.konstanz.sitzungonline.de/bi/vo020.asp?
VOLFDNR=1000059
Georgi, O. (2013, June 19). Rhein-Seilbahn is allowed to stay until 2026.Frankfurter Allgemeine. access at
08/21/2013. Available underhttp://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/koblenz-rhein-seilbahn-darf-bis-2026-
Stay-12236451.html
Gertz, C. & Gertz, E. (2012, June 18). From transport to mobility network. The networking of inter- and
multimodal mobility services as an opportunity for public transport. Background paper on the
development of mobility networks, Hamburg. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available underhttps://
www.vdv.de/vdvgrundpapier-mobilitaetsverbund.pdfx?forced=true
Gossen, M., Scholl, G., Holzhauer, B. & Schipperges, M. (2015). Environmental awareness in Germany 2014.
In-depth study: environmental awareness and behavior of young people (Texts 77/2015). Dessau-Roßlau: Federal
Environment Agency. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available under
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/
texte_77_2015_umweltbewein_in_deutschland_2014_vertiefungsstudie_1.pdf
Groneck, C. (2010). Plea for the Deutz long-distance train station.the passenger (4), 24-27.
Grunwald, A. (2010). Technology Assessment - An Introduction (Society - Technology - Environment, New Series,
Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Berlin: Edition Sigma.
Main and Personnel Office of the City of Koblenz. (2016).Answer to Question No. AF / 0010/2016, Question by the CDU
Council group: Five years of inclined lift. AW / 0011/2016.Accessed on April 6, 2016. Available underhttp://
www.koblenz.de/verwaltung_politik/buergerinfo/to0040.php?__ksinr=3828&toselect=34970
Hauri, M. & Högger, F. (2014). New innovative form of P&R: Park & Ropeway as "Smart Mobility". reduction
the traffic congestion due to the new P&R facility in combination with an urban cable car. Zurich: ZHAW
Zurich University of Applied Sciences. Accessed on May 10, 2016. Available underhttps://www.zhaw.ch/
storage/engineering/ueberuns/medien/medienmitteilungen/2014/1410_Seilbahn/141016_mm_Park-
Ropeway_Projektbeschrieb.pdf
HNV. (2015).Tariff zone plan 2016, Heilbronn. Accessed on April 20, 2016. Available under
http://www.h3nv.de/fileadmin/pdf/tarif/tarif Zonenplan.pdf
Bibliography 75
HNV. (2016a).Mountain railway and city bus. In Künzelsau it's easy to go up and down,HNV. Accessed on April 20, 2016.
Available under http://www.h3nv.de/fahrscheine/fahrkarten-preise/bergbahn-citybus-kuenzelsau.html
HNV. (2016b).Heilbronn • Hohenloher • Haller local transport. The transport association introduces itself,HNV. access
on 04/20/2016. Available underhttp://www.h3nv.de/der-hnv.html
Hormes, M. (2010a, March 14). "Cable cars in cities have proven their worth." Interview with Heiner Monheim
and Christian Muschwitz. Trierian friend of the people. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available underhttp://
www.volksfreund.de/nachrichten/region/trier/Heute-in-der-Trierer-Zeitung-Seilbahnen-in-St-228- dten-haben-
sich-bew-228-hrt; art754,2385761
Hormes, M. (2010b, April 8). Petrisberg climb: SWT's head of traffic rejects criticism of municipal utilities in an interview
Trier back. Trierian friend of the people. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available underhttp://www.volksfreund.de/
nachrichten/region/trier/Heute-in-der-Trierer-Zeitung-Petrisberg-Aufstieg-SWT-Verkehrschef-WEIS-Kritik-im-
Interview-an-Stadtwerken-Trier-zurueck; art754,2409232
Huber, M. (2016, March 23). New cable cars over the city of Zurich.Daily indicator. Accessed on April 19, 2016.
Available under http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/zuerich/region/Neue-Seilbahnen-ueber-der-Stadt-
Zuerich/story/21271785
Huber-Erler, R. & Hofherr, S. (2013). Mobility Concept Trier 2025. Final report. Accessed on February 18, 2013.
Available under
http://www.trier.de/systemstatic/Medien/Mobilitaetskonzept_Trier_2025_Schlussbericht_Anlagenband_T
extband.pdf
ICOMOS. (2013, January 28).Report on an ICOMOS advisory mission to Upper Middle Rhine Valley, Germany.
International Council on Monuments and Sites ICOMOS, Advisory Mission Report. Available under
http://whc.unesco.org/document/122564%E2%80%8E.pdf
IHK Koblenz. (2011).What comes after the BUGA? IHK called for ideas. Available underhttp: //www.ihk-
koblenz.de/servicemarken/medien_und_oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/pressemitteilungen/1546238/Was_kom_
nach_der_BUGA_IHK_rief_zu_Ideen_auf.html
Kallenbach, R. (2011, September 22). Cable car opens up the "new" Koblenz.Rhein newspaper. Available under
http://www.rhein-zeitung.de/region/bundesgartenschau-in-koblenz-2011_artikel,-Seilbahn-erschliesst-
dasneue-Koblenz-_arid,309839.html
Karl, A. (2014). Structural Reform Blockades in Public Transport - On the Challenges of

Organization and legal framework. In O. Schwedes (ed.),Public mobility. Perspectives for sustainable
transport development(2nd ed., Pp. 71-95). Wiesbaden: Springer specialist media.
Kucera, A. (2015 December 3). Sitten dreams of a city cable car.The New Zurich Times. access at
04/19/2016. Available underhttp://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/sitten-traeumt-von-einer-stadt-seilbahn-
1.18656676
State government of North Rhine-Westphalia. (2012).Draft law: law amending the law
local public transport in North Rhine-Westphalia (ÖPNVG NRW). Printed matter 16/57. Düsseldorf: State Parliament of
North Rhine-Westphalia. Accessed on April 13, 2016. Available under
https://www.landtag.nrw.de/portal/WWW/dokumentenarchiv/Dokument?Id=MMD16%2F57|1|0
State Parliament of Baden-Wuerttemberg. (2015a, September 22).Bill of the state government. Law for
Amendment of the State Municipal Transport Financing Act (Printed matter 15/7416), Stuttgart. access at
07/27/2016. Available underhttp://www.landtagbw.de/files/live/sites/LTBW/files/
dokumente/WP15/Drucksachen/7000/15_7416_D.pdf
Bibliography 76
State Parliament of Baden-Wuerttemberg. (2015b, September 30).Plenary minutes of the 137th session of the 15th
Election term on September 30, 2015, Stuttgart. Accessed on July 27, 2016. Available underhttp://
www.landtag-bw.de/files/live/sites/LTBW/files/dokumente/WP15/Plp/15_0137_30092015.pdf
Leitner AG. IGA cable car Gardens of the World. A cable car for Berlin.Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available under
http://www.seilbahn.berlin/de/seilbahn-berlin.html
Liedl, S. (1999). Lecture on cable car technology. Munich: Technical University of Munich. Accessed on December 22nd, 2015.
Available underhttp://newsroom.doppelmayr.com/download/file/4469/
Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Baden-Württemberg. (2015, July 22).Mobility summit region
Stuttgart. Declaration as of July 22, 2015, Stuttgart. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available under
https: //www.baden-
wuerttemberg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/daten/PDF/150722_Abschlusserklaerung_Mobilitaetsgipfel_Stuttg
art.pdf
Monheim, H. (2016). Results of an exchange of views on urban cable cars and their relevance for
Wuppertal on February 12th, 2016 in Wuppertal. Accessed on March 7, 2016. Available underhttp://www.pro-
seilbahnwuppertal.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/160223_wuppertal-seilbahn-treffeninitiqtiv.pdf
Monheim, H. & Muschwitz, C. (2010, January 27). Opinion on the system comparison bus route cable car for
the Petrisberg ascent, Trier. Accessed on February 6, 2014. Available under
http://www.16vor.de/downloads/seilbahn
Monheim, H., Muschwitz, C., Auer, W. & Philippi, M. (2010). Urban cable cars. Modern cable car systems
open up new avenues for mobility in our cities (Traffic practice). Cologne: KSV Kölner Stadt- und
Verkehrsverlag.
Nejez, J. (2009). Urban cable cars.International cable car tour (5), 8-13.
Nolte, H. (2011). Simplified Structure Laying Technique. A Motivating Interview Technique.SSRN Electronic
journal.
Pajares, E. & Priester, R. (2015). Urban cable cars as an innovative addition to public transport. Potential assessment
for use in European cities. Local transport (3), 44-47.
Pfadenhauer, M. (2009). On an equal footing. The expert interview - a conversation between the expert and
Quasi-expert. In A. Bogner, B. Littig & W. Menz (Eds.),Expert interviews. Theory, methods, fields of
application(3rd ed., Pp. 99-116). Wiesbaden: VS publishing house for social sciences.
Potier, M. (2011, September). Source place pour le transport par cable «aérien» en ville? Congrès OITAF 2011.
Accessed on August 21, 2012. Available underhttp://www.oitaf.org/Kongress%202011/Referate/Potier.pdf
PTV Transport Consult GmbH. (2015).Local transport map of the city of Constance. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available
under http://www.konstanz.de/rathaus/medienportal/mitteilungen/08872/index.html
Puhe, M. & Reichenbach, M. (2014). Trapped in the alcove? Cable cars as a complement to the urban
public transport. Technology assessment - theory and practice, 23 (1), 30-38. Accessed on March 22nd, 2016.
Available underhttp://www.tatup-journal.de/tatup141_pure14a.php
Puhe, M. & Schippl, J. (2014). User Perceptions and Attitudes on Sustainable Urban Transport among Young
Adults: Findings from Copenhagen, Budapest and Karlsruhe. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 16
(3), 337-357.
Rau, J.-P. (2013, October 16). The cable car idea raises many questions.Südkurier. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available
under http://www.suedkurier.de/region/kreis-konstanz/konstanz/Seilbahn-Idee-wirft-viele-
Frachtauf;art372448,6373434
Bibliography 77
Rau, J.-P. (2014, August 27). Constance ropeway idea gets headwind from Hamburg.Südkurier. access
on 07/25/2016. Available underhttp://www.suedkurier.de/region/kreis-konstanz/konstanz/Konstanzer-
Seilbahn-Idee-bekommen-Gegenwind-aus-Hamburg;art372448,7203464
Rudolph, KA (2009). Use cases and solution approaches for the realization of urban aerial ropeway projects in
Public transport. (Series of publications by the Institute for Transport Management and Logistics - Verkehr 08/2009). Vienna:
Institute for Transport Economics and Logistics, Vienna University of Economics and Business. Accessed on February 6, 2014.
Available underhttp://epub.wu.ac.at/872/1/document.pdf
Rümmele, M. (2015, October 7). “There will never be cable cars in the city in Europe”.wirtschaftsblatt.at.
Accessed on May 11, 2016. Available underhttp://wirtschaftsblatt.at/home/nachrichten/oesterreich/vorarlberg/
4837170/Seilbahnen-in-der-Stadtwird-es-in-Europa-nie-iegen
Schneider, I. (2010). Cable car in the long run? CDU parliamentary group in Koblenz. Available under
http://cdufraktion-koblenz.de/2010/01/27/seilbahn-doch-auf-zeit/#more-668
Schnieder, L. (2014). Local public transport in 2050 - what could really be different?
Technology assessment - theory and practice, 23 (1), 38-45.
Schweiger, A. (2015, May 17). Preliminary study on the technical feasibility of an urban cable car connection in the
City of Wuppertal between the main train station, university and Küllenhahn. Accessed on December 16, 2015. Available
underhttp://www.seilbahn2025.de/projekt-seilbahn.html
Swiss Federal Railways. (2015).Area of application of general and half-fare travelcards,

Swiss Federal Railways. Accessed on April 19, 2016. Available underhttp://www.sbb.ch/content/dam/
infrastructure/trafimage/karten/karte-geltungsbereich-generalabo.pdf
Sedivy, P. (2012). Lecture on cable car construction. Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck. Accessed on December 22nd, 2015. Available
under
https://web.archive.org/web/20131224095743/http://www.uibk.ac.at/eisenbahnwesen/Seilbahnbau_Skrip
tum_2012_innsbruck.pdf
Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment. (2014, November 28).Chapter 1210 / Title 89145: Grant
to Grün Berlin GmbH for investments (1554 C), Berlin. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available under
http://www.parlament-berlin.de/ados/17/Haupt/vorgang/h17-1554.Cv.pdf
Skyglide Event Deutschland GmbH. (2016).Koblenz cable car. Accessed on July 28, 2016. Available under
http://www.seilbahn-koblenz.de
Sommerhalder, M. (2014, October 17). City cable car to curb traffic.20minuten.ch. access at
05/10/2016. Available underhttp://www.20min.ch/schweiz/zuerich/story/Stadt-Seilbahn-soll-
Verkehreindaemmen-23849037
SPD Koblenz. Buga2011. Positive ecological balance of the cable car at BUGA 2011 when the
Concession agreement presented. Accessed on February 18, 2014. Available underhttp://
www.spdkoblenz.de/index.php?mod=content&page_id=2648&s=15652&menu=901
SpiegelOnline (2011, March 18). Hamburg is planning a giant cable car over the Elbe.Mirror online. access at
04/21/2016. Available underhttp://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/grossprojekt-hamburg-plant-
riesenseilbahn-ueber-die-elbe-a-751757.html
Spiekermann AG Consulting Engineers. (2012).Petrisberg ascent Trier potential investigation, Düsseldorf.

Available underhttps://info.trier.de/bi/vo020.asp?VOLFDNR=6665
City of Constance. (2013).Masterplan Mobility Constance 2020+, Constance. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available
underhttp://www.konstanz.de/umwelt/01604/04651/index.html
Bibliography 78
City of Künzelsau. (no year).Künzelsau mountain railway, City of Künzelsau. Accessed on April 20, 2016. Available under
http://www.kuenzelsau.de/de/enthaben---erleben/Freizeit-und-Sport/Bergbahn
City of Trier. (2009, December 15).Public transport transverse axis Trier-Petrisberg-Aufstieg - fundamental decision and
further procedure (Template 518/2009), Trier. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available under
https://info.trier.de/bi/vo020.asp?VOLFDNR=5305
City of Trier. (2012).Petrisbergaufstieg: Result of the cable car potential study and further procedure (template
162/2012). Accessed on February 18, 2014. Available underhttps://info.trier.de/bi/vo020.asp?VOLFDNR=6665
City of Ulm. (2009).Masterplan Science City Ulm, Ulm. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available underhttp://
www.ulm.de/wirtschaft_wissenschaft/wissenschaftsstadt_ulm.90998.3076,3894,90998.htm
City of Wuppertal. (1997).Urban development planning Wuppertal. 1. Municipal public transport plan of the city
Wuppertal. Accessed on December 16, 2015. Available underhttps://www.wuppertal.de/
rathausbuergerservice/medien/dokumente/NVP_Stadt_Wuppertal.pdf
City of Wuppertal. (2014).Wuppertal 2025. Strategy for Wuppertal. Accessed on December 16, 2015. Available under
https://www.wuppertal.de/rathausbuergerservice/medien/dokumente/_647590/
Strategie_2025_Sachstandsbericht.pdf
City of Wuppertal. (2016a).Citizen participation in the cable car project, City of Wuppertal. Accessed on April 6, 2016.
Available under https://www.wuppertal.de/microsite/buergerbeteiligung/verfahren/seilbahn/seilbahn.php
City of Wuppertal. (2016b).Cable car project: Entry into qualified, open-ended planning with accompanying
Citizen Participation. Printed matter no. VO / 0161/16, Wuppertal. Accessed on March 8, 2016. Available
underhttps://www.wuppertal.de/rathaus/onlinedienste/ris/to0050.php?__ktonr=71756
City of Wuppertal. (2016c).Status of the creation of the new local transport plan - response of the administration.
Printed matter no. VO / 0080/16/1-A, Wuppertal. Accessed on March 8, 2016. Available
underhttps://www.wuppertal.de/rathaus/onlinedienste/ris/vo0050.php?__kvonr=17770
Zurich city. (2014).Regional structure plan for the city of Zurich. Traffic structure plan map, Zurich. Accessed on April
19, 2016. Available underhttps://www.stadtzuerich.ch/hbd/de/index/staedtebau_u_planung/planung/richtplanung/
richtplan.html
City building authority Künzelsau. (2015).Motion for a resolution on the regional collective bargaining association. VO2015 / 60636-1,
Künzelsau. Accessed on April 20, 2016. Available underhttps://www.kuenzelsau.sitzungonline.de/bi/vo020.asp?VOLFDNR=676
City administration Koblenz. (2014).Development plan no.120: Cable car system Federal Garden Show 2011, amendment
and extension no. 2. Template no. BV / 0320/2014, Koblenz. Accessed 04/04/2016. Available underhttp://
www.koblenz.de/verwaltung_politik/buergerinfo/vo0050.php?__kvonr=17658&voselect=2999
Steierwald, G., Künne, H.-D. & Vogt, W. (2005).Urban transport planning. Basics, methods, goals. Berlin:
Springer.
Steinert, K. (2013, October 17). The idea of a cable car heats people's minds.Südkurier. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available
under http://www.suedkurier.de/region/kreis-konstanz/konstanz/Seilbahn-Idee-erhitzt-die-
Gemueter;art372448,6377097
Stennecken, C. & Neumann, J. (2016). Urban cable cars as subject of the planning approval law.
Innovative infrastructure or urban planning dream? Public administration (10), 419-428.
Stückle, B. Ulm cable car. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available underhttp://www.ulmer-seilbahn.de/
Südwest Presse (2012a, July 11). SWU reject cable cars.Southwest Press. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available
under http://www.swp.de/ulm/lokales/ulm_neu_ulm/SWU-lehnen-Seilbahn-ab;art4329,1537456
Bibliography 79
Südwest Presse (2012b, July 18). Cable car? "Really good - but unfortunately missed".Southwest Press. access at
07/25/2016. Available underhttp://www.swp.de/ulm/lokales/ulm_neu_ulm/Seilbahn-Richtig-gut-
aberleider-verfehlt;art1158544,1548147
TCI Röhling; PTV Group. (2012).Overall mobility concept for the southern Elbe area, Waldkirch. access at
07/25/2016. Available underhttp://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/3568000/data/
suederelbekonzeptendfassung.pdf
Thierer, H.-U. (2015, May 7). Clear vote in the Ulm municipal council for the tram extension.southwest
Press. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available underhttp://www.swp.de/ulm/lokales/ulm_neu_ulm/Klares-
Votum-im-Ulmer-Gemeinderat-fuer-den-Strassenbahn-Ausbau;art1158544,3203481
Topp, HH, Hofherr, S. & Müller, M. (2009). Feasibility study Hohenzollern Bridge, Darmstadt.
Troxler, I. (2016, March 23). Zurich in gondola fever.The New Zurich Times. Accessed on April 19, 2016. Available
under http://www.nzz.ch/zuerich/aktuell/stadtverkehr-zuerich-im-gondel-fieber-ld.9333
Transport Committee of the City of Cologne. (2010, March 9th).Minutes of the 4th meeting of the Transport Committee
in the 2009/2014 electoral period on Tuesday, March 9th, 2010, Cologne. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available under
https://ratsinformation.stadt-koeln.de/to0040.asp?__ksinr=4619
Weidmann, U. (2013). New transport systems for cities in transition. Lecture in the series of events of the VöV Zurich on
November 7th, 2013 on the subject of "Cable cars as urban means of transport?", Zurich. Accessed on April 7th, 2016.
Available underhttp://voev-zh.ch/files/131130_165650-3/13_11_07_Seilbahnen_2F-r.pdf
Weiß, C., Chlond, B., Hilgert, T. & Vortisch, P. (2016). Everyday mobility and driving performance (German
Mobility Panel (MOP) - Scientific support and evaluations report 2014/2015). Karlsruhe: Karlsruhe
Institute of Technology. Accessed on July 25, 2016. Available under
https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Anlage/VerkehrUndMobilitaet/2015/mop-jahresbericht-2014-
15.pdf? __ blob = publicationFile
Wilke, G. & Bongardt, D. (2004). Acceptance of innovative concepts for trains and buses among professionals
Actors: Analysis of the actors at national and European level. In H. Monheim & K.-G. Schroll (Ed.),
Acceptance of innovative public transport concepts by professional players (Pp. 94-185). Trier.
Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Economics. (2002).State Development Plan 2002 Baden-Württemberg,

Stuttgart. Accessed on 07/30/2015. Available underhttp://www2.mvi.badenwuerttemberg.de/servlet/is/
35529/
WSW mobil GmbH. (2015).A cable car for Wuppertal. Accessed on December 16, 2015. Available under
http://www.seilbahn2025.de/projekt-seilbahn.html
Zurich Zoo. (undated).Zoo cable car, Zurich Zoo. Accessed on April 19, 2016. Available underhttp://www.zooseilbahn.ch

Practice of Urban Aerial Ropeways: Work Report No.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Practice of Urban Aerial Ropeways: Work Report No.1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Practice of Urban Aerial Ropeways: Work Report No.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Translated from German to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.

Practice of urban aerial ropeways

KIT - The Research University in the Helmholtz Association

Funding of the project: Ministry of Transport Baden-Wuerttemberg

Implementation of the project: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)

Project leader: Maike Puhe (ITAS)

Processing of work report no.1: Max Reichenbach (ITAS) max.reichenbach@kit.edu

Title graphic: Max Reichenbach (ITAS)

Classification in the project context

reduced noise pollution.

2. The aerial cableway in urban areas ........................................... ....................................... 7

2.1. Properties of aerial ropeways ............................................... ............................................... 7

2.2. Definition of 'urban' cable cars ............................................. ............................................... 9

2.3. Areas of application for urban aerial cableways ............................................... ................................... 10

3. Methodical approach .............................................. .................................................. 16

4. Expert assessments of urban aerial ropeways ............................................ ......... 20

4.2. The perspective of the cable car manufacturers .............................................. ....................................... 26

5. Practical examples ............................................... .................................................. ............. 29

5.1. Practical examples examined in detail ............................................... ...................................... 31

5.1.1. Koblenz cable car (in operation) ............................................ ........................................... 31

5.2. Further practical examples ................................................ .................................................. .......... 47

5.2.1. Künzelsau mountain railway (in operation) ............................................ ................................... 47

5.2.2. IGA cable car Berlin (under construction) .......................................... ............................................... 48

5.2.3. Konstanz cable car (ongoing planning) ............................................ ............................. 51

5.2.4. Cable car proposals Zurich (ongoing planning) ............................................ ................. 52

5.3. Other projects not considered in Germany ............................................ ..................... 63

6. Conclusion ............................................... .................................................. ............................. 64

7. Outlook ............................................... .................................................. ........................ 67

Interview directory ................................................. .................................................. ....... 69

2. The aerial cableway in urban areas

2.1. Properties of aerial ropeways

Aerial tramway (single lane)

Aerial tramway (synchronous)

Aerial tramway (independent)

Fig. 2-1: Basic types of aerial ropeways

2.2. Definition of 'urban' cable cars

Note on the use of the term

2.3. Areas of application for urban aerial cableways

● Overcoming topographical or structural hurdles in a short distance

● Development of areas with occasionally high traffic volumes

● Development of peripheral locations:

● Relief of existing public transport systems

● Closing gaps in traffic

2.4. The aerial cableway in the actor landscape of German

the transport associations are required (Schnieder, 2014).

attention of occasional customers (Gertz & Gertz, 2012).

2.5. The legal framework for urban cable cars

First series of interviews: expert interviews

To do ropeway projects professionally, so that in all interviews a large number of concrete

Selection of practical examples

Second series of interviews: interviews with practitioners

Classification in the project context

4. Expert assessments on urban

4.1. The planning perspective

Institution / company date location Interlocutor

Traffic geography Prof. Dr. Heiner Monheim

Ropeway planning Arno Schweiger, Anna Schweiger,

Routines in traffic planning