See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276080656

Experiences with Aerial Ropeway Transportation Systems in the Urban

Environment

Article in Journal of Urban Planning and Development · March 2014

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000158

CITATIONS READS
28 2,653

3 authors:

B. Alshalalfah Amer Said Shalaby

University of Toronto University of Toronto
13 PUBLICATIONS 382 CITATIONS 195 PUBLICATIONS 4,336 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Steven Dale

4 PUBLICATIONS 106 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Amer Said Shalaby on 23 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Experiences with Aerial Ropeway Transportation Systems in
the Urban Environment
Baha’ W. Alshalalfah
Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto, 35 St. George Street,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1A4
Telephone: (416) 732-8801; Fax: (416) 978-6813
E-mail: baha.alshalalfeh@utoronto.ca

Amer Shalaby, Ph.D. P.Eng.

Associate Professor and Chair
Urban Transportation Research and Advancement Centre
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto, Canada, M5S 1A4
Telephone: (416) 978-5907; Fax: (416) 978-5054
Email: amer.shalaby@ecf.utoronto.ca

Steven Dale, B.A.

Founding Principal
Creative Urban Projects (CUP)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Telephone: (416) 524-5056
E-mail: steven@creativeurbanprojects.com

Fadel M Y Othman, Ph.D.

Center of Research Excellence in Hajj and Omrah,
Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia.
E-mail: fadelothman@gmail.com

Key Words:
- Aerial Ropeway Transit
- Detachable Gondolas
- Aerial Tramways

Word Count:
- Text = 6,735
- Tables (2 x 250) = 500
- Figures (3 x 250) = 750
-----------
= 7,985

Date of Submission: July 31, 2011

 2

1 ABSTRACT
2 The main purpose of conventional transit systems is to serve concentrated travel patterns in
3 urban areas, where they usually have high levels of success. Unconventional transit modes have
4 also found success in specific conditions, fuelled by the need for transit modes that handle
5 different demand levels, urban environment patterns and even natural constraints and barriers. In
6 many urban contexts, geographical and topographical barriers such as mountains, valleys and
7 bodies of water, and the very large infrastructure costs associated with overcoming these
8 barriers, may not permit the implementation of conventional public transportation systems. In
9 such cases, transit agencies may look to unconventional modes of travel to serve the needs of the
10 residents of these areas. Aerial Ropeway Transit (ART), a type of aerial transportation mode in
11 which passengers are transported in cabins that are suspended and pulled by cables, is one of the
12 solutions that has shown its implementation rise in the past decade. This article attempts to shed
13 some light on ART technology by presenting experiences with this technology from both the
14 United States as well as other parts of the world including: the reasons for building these
15 systems, their service and operational characteristics as well as other case-specific information.
16 The paper concludes with an assessment of experiences with these systems based on
17 observations from the reviewed case studies.
18
 3

1 INTRODUCTION
2
3 Real-world applications of conventional public transport technologies in urban areas might not
4 always be feasible due to several factors that are not necessarily attributed to passenger demand,
5 such as the very high capital and operating cost of these systems and the limited availability of
6 real estate to expand/create new systems. More importantly, in many urban contexts,
7 geographical and topographical barriers such as mountains, valleys and bodies of water, and the
8 very large infrastructure costs associated with overcoming these barriers, may not permit the
9 consideration and/or the implementation of conventional public transportation systems. In such
10 cases, transit agencies may look to unconventional modes of travel to serve the needs of the
11 residents of these naturally constrained areas.
12
13 Vuchic (1) identified several unconventional technologies that have been used as mass transit
14 modes in specific conditions many areas around the world. A technology that has seen its
15 implementation grow significantly in recent years is Aerial Ropeway Transit (ART), a promising
16 technology that is increasingly being used in areas with natural constraints. It is an aerial public
17 transit technology in which cabins (also called carriers, vehicles or cars) are suspended and
18 propelled from above by cables. The underlying technology of ART has been around for more
19 than a century, where it has been applied mostly in terrain-challenged recreational contexts (e.g.
20 Gondolas/Telepheriques in ski resorts). In recent years, several cities in North America and
21 around the world, however, have used similar and advanced technologies for mass transportation
22 in geographically-constrained urban areas, where conventional transit service was deemed very
23 difficult or infeasible to implement. ART can be thought of as a member of the broader Cable-
24 Propelled Transit technology (CPT), which also includes rail-supported Cable Cars (2).
25
26 The available information on Aerial Ropeway Transit in the literature is very limited, even
27 though ART systems now operate in several cities around the world. The main research on the
28 subject was done by Neumann (3), who provided a detailed discussion of the performance, cost
29 and application potential of some cable-propelled technologies. The study included a discussion
30 of some aerial ropeway systems in the urban environment as well as other types of cable-
31 propelled systems such as Funiculars and airports’ people movers. Neumann (4) later provided a
32 thorough review of cable-propelled people movers in the past and their future potential. The
33 study included a review of the history of cable-propelled movers from the 1800’s through the
34 1990’s, as well as a description of the characteristics of some individual systems around the
35 world.
36
37 This paper attempts to shed some light on this technology by discussing the most notable
38 experiences with ART installations in both the United States as well as other parts of the world.
39 It is important to mention that the focus of this article is ART case studies from around the
40 world; more information on the technology, its origins, system components, and description of
41 the available technologies can be found in (5 and 6). The paper begins with an overview of the
42 system components of ART systems as well as a brief description of the available ART
43 technologies. The paper then provides a discussion of the existing ART applications in both the
44 US as well as in other parts of the world. A brief overview of planned or under construction ART
45 systems from around the world is also presented. Following that, an assessment of experiences
 4

1 with these systems is presented, including their benefits and limitations. The paper concludes
2 with a summary and a discussion of the advancements needed for ART technologies to be a fully
3 recognized transit mode.
4
5 ART TECHNOLOGIES
6
7 A review of ART installation in the urban environment around the world, as well as information
8 gathered from ART manufacturers revealed that at the present time, ART technologies that have
9 been used as mass transit modes in urban areas include the following technologies:
10
11  Detachable Gondolas, which include
12 o Monocable Detachable Gondola (MDG)
13 o Bicable Detachable Gondola (BDG)
14 o Tricable Detachable Gondola (TDG)
15  Aerial Tramways, which include:
16 o Single-Haul Aerial Tramways
17 o Dual-Haul Aerial Tramways
18
19 These technologies have the same basic components discussed above, with some variations in
20 cable configuration and cabin detachability that essentially differentiate these technologies from
21 each other. Most recent urban ART installations have been detachable gondola systems (i.e.
22 MDG, BDG and TDG). For these detachable systems, the system operation includes an area in
23 the terminal where each gondola is detached from the ropeway; decelerated to a speed slow
24 enough for disembarking and boarding; and then accelerated, allowing for the reattachment of
25 the gondola’s grip to the haulage rope. This type of operation allows for disembarking and
26 boarding to take place in separate locations on the platform. Similarly, at intermediate stations,
27 each gondola detaches from one cable and subsequently attaches to another cable that is aligned
28 in a different direction; hence turns are possible in detachable gondola systems.
29
30 In both single-haul and dual-haul Aerial Tramways, also known as reversible ropeways, each
31 carrier travels and reverses on the same cable line. If there are two lines, the carriers may
32 reciprocate between the terminals, with the electric engine at the lower terminal using one
33 carrier’s weight to raise the other (single-haul); alternatively, the carriers may be moved
34 independently using separate haul ropes (dual-haul). Unlike detachable gondolas, each aerial
35 tramway carrier must stop at the station, where disembarking and boarding takes place while the
36 carrier is stopped. Alighting and boarding may proceed from the opposite doors of the carrier in
37 order to facilitate unloading and loading. Also, since carriers are not detachable, angle stations
38 and thus changes in direction are not possible in aerial tramways. Table 1 summarizes the
39 technological, service and operation characteristics of the available ART technologies. More
40 information on the system components and the available ART technologies are found in (5 and
41 6).
42
43 ART SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES

44 The first urban public transit application in the United States of an aerial ropeway system was the
45 Roosevelt Island Tram. Despite being completed in 1976, urban aerial ropeway systems have not
 5

1 proliferated like other transit modes due to several reasons that will be discussed at the end of
2 this article. In this section, we discuss the three ART installations in the US that have been used
3 for mass transportation; they include the Roosevelt Island Tramway, Portland Aerial Tramway
4 and the Telluride Gondola.
5
6 Roosevelt Island Tramway, USA
7
8 System Overview and History
9 Roosevelt Island in New York had been connected to Manhattan by a trolley line that crossed
10 over a bridge since 1909. Beginning in the mid-1970s, Roosevelt Island was redeveloped to
11 accommodate low- to mid-income housing projects. This led the Roosevelt Island Development
12 Corporation (RIOC) to study several alternatives to connect the island to Manhattan. RIOC
13 concluded that the limited access to Manhattan and long commuter trips that require several
14 transfers, would make aerial tramways the best interim solution to be installed until the subway
15 is extended and a station could be built on the island. The plan was for the tram to become a
16 tourist attraction and shuttle people back and forth to the island’s numerous sports facilities once
17 the subway was extended to the Island.
18
19 Accordingly, the Roosevelt Island Tramway was built in 1976; as the subway project fell further
20 behind schedule, the tram became more popular. When the subway was finally extended to
21 Roosevelt Island and a subway station was built in 1989, the tram was too popular to
22 discontinue, and was kept as a permanent transportation facility (7). The Roosevelt Island
23 Tramway was the first aerial ropeway used for mass transit service (i.e. commuter aerial
24 tramway) in North America. By 2010, over 26 million passengers have used the tram since it
25 began operation in 1976 (7). Since 2005, the tram service has been integrated with the New
26 York’s Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) MetroCard system, providing tram riders with
27 bus and subway transfer privileges enjoyed by other MTA passengers.

28
29 System Design and Service Characteristics
30 The tram runs parallel to the Queensboro Bridge with three intermediate towers over the East
31 River. The system has two terminals: the Roosevelt Island terminal that contains the engine room
32 for the system and the Manhattan terminal, which had to be elevated in order to prevent tram cars
33 from being too close to car traffic on Second Avenue. Before a modernization project in 2010
34 changed the way the system operates (as discussed later), the line had two cabins each with a
35 capacity of 125 passengers. During rush hours, the tram operates with peak headway of 7.5 minutes,
36 resulting in a line capacity of 1000 PPDPH. Table 2 shows the service characteristics of the
37 Roosevelt Island Tramway.
38
39 Modernization Project
40 On March 1, 2010, the Roosevelt Island Tramway was closed as part of a $25 million project to
41 upgrade and modernize the system. The system was converted from the traditional Aerial
42 Tramway to a Dual-Haul Aerial Tramway, where the cabins are allowed to operate
43 independently of each other (see Figure 1). All system components, including cables, were
44 replaced except for the three tower bases. The original "single haul" Aerial Tram system that was
45 in operation for 34 years required cabins to travel along the cable loop at the same time, with
 6

1 each cabin ending its trip at the opposite side because of the synchronization of the cabins found
2 in traditional "single haul" Aerial Trams. This resulted in situations where both cabins were
3 operational during non-peak travel times, even though the demand did not warrant that.
4 Moreover, when maintenance on just one part of the system was required, both cabins were
5 taken out of operation because of the system design. In contrast, the new Dual-Haul system
6 enables the cabins to travel independently, allowing for greater scheduling flexibility during rush
7 and off-peak hours, while also permitting maintenance on one side while the other remains
8 operational avoiding the need for high level rescue equipment. The new cabins can carry up to
9 110 passengers (resulting in line capacity of 1500 PPDPH, and adhere to all the requirements of
10 modern urban transport, in particular Disability Access (ADA) and the utilization of highly
11 durable construction materials (7):
12
13 Portland Aerial Tramway, USA
14
15 System Overview and History
16 The system’s brief history began in 1999 when the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU)
17 developed a 20-year Plan to address OHSU's future growth in its campus, which is located on top
18 of Marquam Hill in Portland. The expansion of the Marquam Hill Campus over the years led the
19 University to consider moving to another location due to the topographical and road constraints
20 preventing expansion in the campus area (8). OHSU considered several expansion scenarios, but
21 after agreement with the city identified South Waterfront as the best expansion site. However,
22 connecting the campus with South Waterfront was a challenge given the change in elevation and
23 limited accessibility between the two locations.
24
25 Based on that assumption, a study was commissioned to consider the connection alternatives
26 between the two locations concluded that an aerial tram would be the best transportation solution
27 that can provide door-to-door travel between campuses of no more than 15 minutes.
28 Accordingly, construction of the tram began in August 2005. Construction of the system cost $57
29 million dollars, with OHSU providing $40 million of that cost. The city's share of construction
30 costs ($8.5 million) will be collected over time from the rising property values in South
31 Waterfront resulting from its redevelopment (9).
32
33 In December 2006, the Portland Aerial Tram began its Operational Phase. The tram first was
34 opened to OHSU employees and students, and on January 27, the tram was opened to the public
35 after over eight years of planning. OHSU oversees operation of the Tram, while the city is
36 responsible for the maintenance of the upper and lower stations and tower and for providing
37 regulatory oversight. The tram is now part of Portland's public transportation system that
38 includes the Portland Streetcar, MAX Light Rail, and Tri-Met buses.
39
40 The Portland Aerial Tramway was an instant success as evidenced by the ridership numbers on
41 the tram in its first year of operation. Original studies by transportation officials estimated that
42 the line would carry over 1,500 people a day. Those initial estimates proved to be pessimistic as
43 the tram carried an average of 3,700 riders per day during that first year of operation. In fact, the
44 projected ridership for 2007 was 864,000 passengers but the actual ridership surpassed that and
45 totaled around 1.4 million passengers, 38% higher than projected (10).
46
 7

1 System Design and Service Characteristics

2 The Portland Aerial Tram consists of two stations (terminals) and a single intermediate tower. As
3 with the operation of any Aerial Tramway systems, two tram cabins (i.e. cars) operate on parallel
4 track ropes and are pulled in unison by a haul rope which is driven by an engine at the lower
5 terminal. Each car has a capacity of over 13 tons and there is sufficient room in the cabin for 78
6 passengers and one operator. Figure 2 shows a diagram of the cars used by the tram.
7
8 As explained earlier, the lower terminal is located in the South Waterfront neighborhood,
9 adjacent to a stop on the Portland Streetcar line, which connects the South Waterfront
10 neighborhood with downtown Portland. The upper terminal is located on the OHSU's Marquam
11 Hill campus. The tram's route goes over a state highway, two frontage/service roads, an interstate
12 highway, and several neighborhoods. The alternative to riding the tram is via public roadways
13 which require a 1.9 mile (3.1 km) route with numerous traffic lights and intersections. Table 2
14 shows the service characteristics of the Portland Aerial Tramway.
15
16 Privacy Issues
17 The tram has been subject to criticism from the public since its introduction as many residents in
18 the neighborhoods under the tram's route objected to the tram's presence. Many residents of
19 neighborhoods over which the tram passes were concerned the cars would be an invasion of
20 privacy and lead to lower property values. Initially, residents were promised that overhead power
21 lines would be buried as part of the project, but as cost overruns mounted, this plan was scrapped
22 (9). Therefore, although the system has been a huge success in terms of attracting ridership, there
23 are still privacy issues that need to be dealt with.
24
25 Telluride Gondola, Colorado
26
27 System Overview and History
28 Telluride is a ski resort town in southwest Colorado; its partner city, Mountain Village, is on the
29 other side of a steep ridge and outside of the box canyon in which Telluride lies (111). Telluride is a
30 very walkable place and has not expanded inside its canyon. On the other hand, its partner city
31 Mountain Village, which was founded in 1995, is the base for the Telluride ski resort; the need to
32 connect the two towns while reducing parking and traffic problems was a great concern to local
33 authorities (12).
34
35 Given the location of the two towns, several constraints made it difficult to connect the two
36 towns through conventional transportation solutions; these constrains included the mountainous
37 terrain and the expense of building mountain roads, pollution from automobiles and weather
38 conditions. Accordingly, the Telluride Ski and Golf Company (Telski) decided that an
39 unconventional transportation alternative was needed to connect the two villages together, which
40 led to building a three-leg gondola system to serve the resort towns and the ski slopes (11).
41
42 System Design and Service Characteristics
43 The Telluride Gondola was opened in November 1996, and it provides visitors and locals with
44 free, accessible transportation between the towns of Telluride and Mountain Village in 15
45 minutes (compared to the 20 minutes drive time). The gondola system, which extends for two
46 miles and cost $16 million, has two sections; one between Telluride and Mountain Village with
47 one intermediate station called St. Sophia and another between the Mountain Village core and
 8

1 services elsewhere in the same town (11). The system, which operates with 32 eight-passenger
2 gondolas, has a line capacity of 480 people per hour, a 600% increase in line capacity compared
3 to the alternate eight-mile bus route, which has a total capacity of 80 people per hour. The
4 system was designed for additional gondolas to be added when demand increases.
5
6 The gondola system avoids the constraints of the mountains, weather, pollution from
7 automobiles, and the expense of building mountain roads to the national historic district of
8 Telluride. Operating costs of about $3.5 million per year are paid for by a 3% tax on real estate
9 transactions. Table 2 shows the service characteristics of the Telluride Gondola.
10
11 ART SYSTEMS IN THE OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD

12 Medellin Metrocable, Colombia

13
14 System Overview and History
15 Medellin is a city in Colombia with a population of 2.4 million. With its surrounding area, it is
16 the second largest city in Colombia in terms of population (at more than 3.5 million people) and
17 economy (13). The city is located in the Aburra Valley and is therefore surrounded by hills,
18 many of which are home to underdeveloped barrios. Due to the location of the barrios on the
19 hills surrounding Medellin, these areas cannot be reached by Medellin's biggest mass
20 transportation system, the Metro, which is operated by Metro Medellin (the city’s transit
21 authority). One of these barrios is the Santo Domingo barrio, where few people had private
22 transportation and the only form of public transit was a private bus company that infrequently
23 served the area. At the time, a resident of Santo Domingo could expect to spend 2 – 2 1/2 hours
24 commuting to work in the Medellin core each way (2). The topographical constraints led to the
25 conclusion that other (unconventional) types of transit modes should be explored to serve the
26 residents of the hills.
27
28 In the early 2000’s, Metro Medellin considered connecting Santo Domingo to the Metro system
29 via a gondola system. After much discussions and deliberations, the City Council of Medellin
30 and the Colombian government approved building a gondola system to connect the Medellin hill
31 residents to the Metro. In 2006, Medellin opened its first gondola line (Line K as will be
32 discussed later) with the purpose of providing a complementary transportation service to that of
33 Medellin's Metro (14).
34
35 System Design and Service Characteristics
36 The Metrocable system is a branch of Medellin's metro, and it is managed by the corporation
37 Metro of Medellin. The system consists of gondolas connected to a fixed cable through means of
38 a grip. The haulage cable is pulled by large wheels allowing the cabins to move at an average
39 speed of 18 km/h. At the present time (July 2011) three lines have been built: Line K, Line J and
40 Line L. Table 2 shows the characteristics of the three lines.
41
42 Line K was opened in 2004 as the first Metrocable line in Medellin. The line cost $26 million for
43 a length of 2.8 km and four stations. Line K was such a huge success that it resulted in
44 overcrowding almost immediately upon opening. In the seven years since Line K opened, crime
45 in Santo Domingo has dropped significantly, and Metro of Medellin authorities have stated that a
 9

1 300% increase in jobs was observed (2). With the success of line K, Metro officials had little
2 trouble convincing decision-makers to open Line J.
3
4 Line J was opened in 2008 and cost $50 million for a length of 2.7 km and four stations.
5 However, unlike Line K, which was built only for the purpose of connecting the hill residents to
6 the Metro system, Line J is much more actively involved in Transit Oriented Development
7 (TOD). Unlike Line K, Line J connects several smaller barrios in the western end of the city.
8 These barrios suffered from similar economic conditions but did not have the population density
9 that Line K had; therefore Line J did not experience the overcrowding of Line K (2).
10
11 Medellin’s third and most recent Metrocable line is Line L, which serves Parque Arvi, a new
12 nature preserve a few kilometers away from the city. Line L was opened in 2010 and cost $25
13 million for a length of 4.6 km and two stations. The line was built in part to help promote and
14 develop tourism in the rural areas around Lake Guarne. Line L could be thought of as an
15 extension to Line K as it extends from the Santo Domingo Savio Station on Line K to the Parque
16 Arvi area. However, the two lines have separate operations; therefore, Santo Domingo Savio
17 Station is considered a transfer station that connects the two lines. Unlike Medellin’s previous
18 two cable lines, Line L requires an additional fare to ride. To access Line L, passengers must
19 disembark at the Santo Domingo terminal of Line K and cross over to another station and board
20 Line L. Nevertheless, transfers are relatively hassle-free due to an elevated cross-over connecting
21 the two lines (2).
22
23 Caracas Metrocable, Venezuela
24
25 System Overview and History
26 The city of Caracas, Venezuela, is located in a narrow mountain valley and, similar to Medellin,
27 has impoverished and poorly connected hillside barrios. In contrast to Medellin, Caracas had an
28 aerial ropeway system that was originally built in 1952 for tourists; the system remained open
29 until the end of the 1970s when political and economic strife caused the government to neglect
30 both the hotel and tramway (2). It was not until the year 2000 that the national government gave
31 concession to reopen the system to coincide with the new Hotel Humboldt.
32
33 In addition to this line for tourists, the State Government decided to build the Caracas
34 Metrocable; a network of gondola lines that serve the poorest areas of the City- similar to the
35 Medellin Metrocable. On 20 April 2007, construction began on the first line, which starts at San
36 Agustín and reaches towards Central Park (Parque Central) station, where it is linked to the
37 subway network. Caracas opened its new aerial transit system (i.e. the San Agustín - Parque
38 Central line) in early 2010. Moreover, studies are currently underway on another Metrocable line
39 to connect Palo Verde station with the Marich area.
40
41 System Design and Service Characteristics
42 The San Agustín - Parque Central Metrocable line uses MDG technology and was built by the
43 Doppelmayr/Garaventa Group. The line has five stations: two terminal stations and three
44 intermediate stations. Caracas Metrocable feature enormous stations that included social
45 facilities such as gymnasiums, police stations, community centers and markets. The cost of
46 building the system is reported to be $265 million, which includes the cost of the
 10

1 stations/community centers. However, the price of the gondola system itself was only $18
2 million (2). Table 2 shows Caracas Metrocable service characteristics.
3
4 Revolutionary System Design
5 One of the most extraordinary aspects of the San Agustín Metrocable line is its alignment, which
6 includes two 90 degree turns at two stations along the route. It is considered the first aerial
7 ropeway system in the world to implement a 90 degree turn. This revolutionary technology
8 illustrates the willingness of aerial ropeway manufacturers to adapt to certain requirements by
9 improving upon their technology (2). The system uses a single, passive-deflection bull wheel at
10 the two 90 degree stations, dramatically reducing the complexity, size and cost of the system.
11 Only at the middle station is a second drive wheel utilized as shown in Figure 3. This, in
12 essence, means that the Caracas Metrocable is made up of two separate lines where vehicles
13 switch automatically from one line to the second at the middle station. Additionally, a
14 mechanism was designed into the middle station that allows operators to divert vehicles such that
15 they do not automatically switch onto the new line, returning instead from where they came.
16 This configuration creates additional benefit from an operations perspective, since in the event
17 that either of the two lines experiences any mechanical difficulties; the second line would be able
18 to continue its operations without any problem.
19
20 Complexo do Alemao Teleférico, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

21 As part of public works initiatives ahead of the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio, Brazil’s
22 government has invested $74 million for the third cable propelled urban transit system in South
23 America, following the success of Medellin and Caracas discussed earlier. The 3.4-km line
24 connects to the Complexo do Alemão group of favelas on hillsides in the city’s north, with a total
25 travel time of 16 minutes (15). The Complexo do Alemao Teleferico has six stations, and the line
26 capacity is 3,000 passengers per hour per direction, with 152 gondolas carrying ten passengers
27 each. The gondola system contributes to the pacification of the serviced area, which was
28 recently freed from drug traffic control, and it provides an efficient transportation mode in an
29 area with steep, narrow, winding passageways (16). The significantly reduced travel time from
30 about one and half hours to a nearby commuter rail station is beneficial to the community (17).
31 Table 2 shows the service characteristics of the Complexo do Alemao Teleferico.
32
33 Rhine Ropeway, Koblenz

34 The Rheinseilbahn (i.e. Rhine Ropeway) is a TDG (3S) Gondola system in the City of Koblenz
35 in Germany. The system is used to shuttle locals as well as tourists from downtown Koblenz to
36 the location of the bi-annual BUGA horticultural show located 1 kilometer across the Rheine
37 River. The BUGA opened in the summer of 2011, but almost a year prior to the show’s opening
38 (i.e. 2010), the Rheinseilbahn was already in service. The system operates at a line speed of 19.8
39 km/hr, a speed lower than the 30.6 km/h that can be achieved by TDG systems. The system has a
40 capacity of 3,600 PPDPH with a cabin capacity of 35 persons per cabin. The system
41 characteristics (speed and capacity) are much lower that what can be achieved by TDG systems
42 due to the tourist-based nature of the system, where tourists prefer lower speeds to enjoy the
43 scenery, and the low ridership expected on the system (2). Table 2 shows the service
44 characteristics of the Rhine Ropeway.
 11

1
2
3 Ngong Ping Cable Car 360, Hong Kong
4
5 System Overview and History
6
7 The idea for this system came to life in 2000 when, following a feasibility study, the Hong Kong
8 government issued an invitation for detailed proposals and tender for a 30-year franchise on a
9 Build-Operate-Transfer basis for the operation, management and maintenance of a gondola
10 system connecting Hong Kong to Lantau Island. The Tourism Commission declared that the
11 objective of the project was to increase the range of attractions available to visitors in order to
12 enhance Hong Kong's position as a leading tourist destination in the region (18).
13
14 Construction of the Cable Car project started at the beginning of 2004. The system was originally
15 scheduled to open in June 2006, but during the trial-run with the maximum of 109 gondola
16 cabins on the cables, a cabin arriving at Ngong Ping station had a slight collision with a late
17 departing cabin. The entire system was automatically halted by the safety system, leaving 500
18 volunteers trapped in the air for two hours. The company that operates the system stressed that
19 the trials were meant to help identify problems and said that there were absolutely no doubts
20 about passengers' safety during the incident. The problem was resolved when the system that
21 controls the spacing of the cabins resumed operation without any harm to the passengers
22 onboard. As a result of the incident, the opening of the system was delayed until November
23 2006 (19).
24
25 System Design and Service Characteristics
26 Ngong Ping 360 is owned by the MTR Corporation, the operator of Hong Kong's rail system.
27 The length of the system is 5.7 km, and the line provides a 25 minute aerial alternative to the
28 current one-hour journey by road. The line uses a continuous circulating Bicable gondola
29 ropeway system. Between the Tung Chung and Ngong Ping Terminals, the system changes
30 direction twice at the two angle stations. The gondola cabins are temporarily detached from the
31 cables at each angle station; there are no passenger loading or unloading facilities at these points.
32 The system is supported by eight towers. The cabin has a modern design with seating for 10 and
33 standing room for another seven. It also incorporates features to meet the needs of disabled
34 passengers, including elderly and wheelchair users. The system has a capacity of 3,500 people
35 per hour in each direction (20). Table 2 presents the system characteristics of the Ngong Ping
36 Cable Car.
37
38 Sentosa Island Gondola, Singapore
39
40 Originally opened in 1974, the Sentosa Island Cable Car carries mostly tourists from Mount
41 Faber on Singapore’s south shore, across the harbor to Sentosa Island, a popular recreation
42 destination; locals have a boardwalk and monorail as cheaper alternatives, hence the touristic
43 nature of ridership. This gondola system was a pioneer in being the first to span a major harbor
44 and the first to implement an intermediate station within the envelope of a skyscraper. It is 1.7-
45 km long, has a capacity of 2,000 passengers per hour per direction, and a vehicle capacity of
46 eight and maximum operating speed of 18 km/h.
 12

1
2 The system recently underwent an overhaul, having converted from an old BDG system to a
3 contemporary MDG system. The switch to using a single cable for both propulsion and support
4 required significant changes to pre-existing towers and stations. The overhaul cost $26 million,
5 with $18 million for electro-mechanical parts. A unique VIP cabin can now be booked for a
6 more luxurious trip (2).
7
8
9 Cable of Constantine, Algeria
10
11 System Overview and History
12 The Cable of Constantine was opened in 2008 to connect the east and west banks of the city of
13 Constantine, Algeria. The city faced a number of obstacles when it built the system. The first
14 obstacle was that the system required the use of substantial resources especially at the terminal
15 sites. Secondly, there were some mistakes made during the steps prior to starting work as the
16 geotechnical and topographical surveys conducted in 2006 underestimated some details that have
17 caused problems later.
18
19 Nevertheless, the system is popular among the residents, as it carries more than 10,000
20 passengers per day. In fact, the success of the first ART line in Constantine seems to have
21 encouraged the local authorities to repeat the experience by offering the government to create no
22 fewer than four new lines to relieve transportation problems in Constantine known for its
23 particularly rugged topography. One of the proposed lines will link the downtown Bekira, and
24 the other will connect the center city to city Daks, two locations known for their high density
25 urban development, but especially for their high traffic congestion. The first line will extend
26 over a distance of 5km and will serve a population of over 120,000 residents. The second will
27 cover a distance of 3 km and should greatly help relieve the region's traffic problems (21).
28
29 The system, which runs daily from 6:00am to 11:00pm, was built by the Doppelmayr/Garaventa
30 Group. The system has three stations (two terminals and one intermediate station). The first
31 section of the line is 425m long while the second section is 1091m long, resulting in a total line
32 length of 1516m. The 35 MDG gondola cabins carry 2,400 passengers per hour and serve
33 100,000 residents of the northern sector of the city. Table 2 presents the system characteristics
34 of the Cable of Constantine.
35
36 Other Planned ART Installations
37
38 London, United Kingdom
39
40 The United Kingdom’s first urban gondola system, funded upfront by Transport for London, will
41 cross the River Thames, from Greenwich Peninsula to the Royal Docks, stretching 1.1 km. It will
42 have a capacity of up to 2,500 passengers per hour, using 34 gondola cabins. Completion is
43 targeted for summer 2012 before the London Olympic Games (22). The system will have only
44 two stations and will be intended mainly for tourists; although London’s pay-as-you-go Oyster
45 fare card will be accepted, there will not be physical integration with the city’s transit system and
46 a separate fare will be required for the gondola line (2).
47
 13

1 Sochi, Russia
2
3 Sochi will have more than 20 lifts installed before the 2014 winter Olympics that will take place
4 in that Russian city. The latest lift to be ordered with Doppelmayr is the world’s first two-
5 section TDG system, which will be 3,100 m long and 700 m high. The system, to be completed
6 in 2013, connects Krasnaya Polyana to Rosa Khutor Olympic Village and then the Rosa Khutor
7 Finish Zone, with a transport capacity of 4,500 passengers per hour. The system includes 53
8 passenger cabins, and it will serve as a back-up to the road leading to the Olympic Village with
9 25 special carriers for the transportation of cars (23).
10
11
12 SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES
13
14 As explained in the discussion above, each case has its own characteristics and system design
15 depending on the technology used. However, it is clear that in all cases, ART was implemented
16 because it was deemed a more effective transit mode than conventional transit modes in these
17 terrain-constrained urban areas. A Review of the above ART implementations reveals that the
18 greatest potential for ART systems has been found to exist in the following conditions:
19 constrained financial resources, major natural or artificial obstacles, time constraints, the
20 availability of a relatively straight alignment, the requirement of a direct link between two points,
21 and the lack of planned extensive expansions. The advantages of installing these systems include
22 low capital, maintenance and operating costs and minimal environmental and construction
23 impacts. The disadvantages include the difficulty of expanding the system, the requirement of
24 straight alignments between stations for some technologies (i.e. Aerial Ropeways), forced
25 shutdowns by high winds and electrical storms, dramatic evacuation techniques, and high
26 insurance premiums.
27
28 The fact that most of these applications came to life during the past decade and the success of
29 these applications prove that ART is gaining more attention from transit agencies around the
30 world that see it as a viable and feasible transit mode especially in naturally constrained urban
31 areas. Moreover, the success of the existing ART applications in the urban environment has led
32 to several other ART applications being planned for introduction all over the world. As
33 explained earlier, some of the existing urban ART applications reviewed earlier in this section
34 are being planned for expansion (e.g. Caracas, Medellin and Constantine systems) and new
35 systems are in the planning or constructions phase such as in London (UK), Hamburg
36 (Germany), Sochi (Russia) and the Simon Fraser University Gondola in British Columbia,
37 Canada which has already conducted a preliminary feasibility study and – at time of writing –
38 was in the advanced stages of public consultation and business case analysis.
39

40 LESSONS LEARNED
41
42 Based on the reviewed case studies, ART systems seem to have a relatively minimal footprint on
43 the landscape during both construction and operation. The usefulness of ART in this regard is
44 particularly apparent when transit routes must traverse topographic obstacles or wide roadways,
45 which would necessitate the construction of bridges or tunnels if other transit modes were used.
46 In addition, other modes that achieve similar levels of service as ART require either require
 14

1 transfer some road capacity a dedicated right-of-way or leave a significant footprint (e.g. BRT
2 and LRT). In some cases (e.g. where there are very steep grades, the route is environmentally
3 sensitive, or there is limited road capacity or space for other modes), ART may, in fact, be the
4 only practicable and acceptable option.
5
6 As discussed in the case studies, perspectives on the impact of ART on the landscape can be
7 influenced by various factors, which can be addressed through consultation with the local
8 community and relevant organizations and through improved routing and architectural design.
9 These factors include how the route affects the privacy of residential properties, how the
10 locations and sizes of support towers are perceived, and how compatible the ART system is with
11 the local architecture and nature (i.e. whether there it will have a detrimental visual impact). An
12 additional consideration is that curved horizontal alignments are less common in ART systems
13 than in other modes and are typically achieved through intermediate angle stations, which may
14 increase the impact on the landscape. Understandably, a low profile design, i.e. low elevation
15 (with improved safety and reduced insurance costs), with routes along roadways, rivers or public
16 spaces would minimize residents’ opposition to an ART project.
17
18 The ART vehicles themselves do not have motors, thus effectively eliminating noise and air
19 pollution along the route; some newer vehicles incorporate solar panels that power on-board
20 devices. Overall, ART systems have relatively low carbon footprints and have been used to sell
21 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credits such as in the case of Medellin (24). In situations where
22 commuters rely heavily on private automobiles and diesel buses, ART can also play a positive
23 role in preventing substantial amounts of GHG emissions.
24
25 Finally, although urban ART systems are now fairly common in South America, an ART mass
26 transit project in other parts of the world will still be perceived to be novel and, based on the
27 experience in South America, will experience high usage rates. ART systems have been shown
28 to improve the image of cities and the experience of passengers, both local and visiting. In areas
29 that are newly developed or redeveloped, ART, as a simple, innovative transit alternative, can
30 facilitate the implementation of transit-oriented development. Where possible, ART terminals
31 can be designed such that they include other facilities and services, which could generate
32 additional revenues and increases the attractiveness of the service.

33
34

35 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
36

37 This research has been supported by the Center of Research Excellence in Hajj and Umrah,
38 Makkah, Saudi Arabia.
 15

1 REFERENCES

2 1. Vuchic, V. Urban Transit Systems and Technology, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New
3 Jersey, 2007.
4
5 2. The Gondola Project. http://www.gondolaproject.com. Accessed July 3, 2011.
6
7 3. Neumann, E. Cable Propelled People Movers in Urban Environments. In Transportation
8 Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1349, Transportation
9 Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 1992, pp. 125-132.
10
11 4. Neumann, E. The Past, Present, and Future of Urban Cable-Propelled People Movers.
12 Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 31, 1999, pp. 51-82.
13
14 5. Alshalalfah, B., A. Shalaby, S. Dale, and F. Othman. Aerial Ropeway Transportation
15 Systems in the Urban Environment: State of the Art. Accepted for publication in the Journal
16 of Transportation Engineering, to appear.
17
18 6. Alshalalfah, B., and A. Shalaby. Aerial Ropeway Transit: State of the ART. CD Proceedings
19 of the 90th Annual Transportation Research Board Meeting, Washington D.C., U.S., Jan.
20 2011.
21
22 7. Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation. http://www.rioc.com. Accessed June 28, 2011.
23
24 8. Gmuender, J. The Marquam Hill – OSU Project. Portland Oregon. Presented at the Ninth
25 Symposium of the International Organization for Transportation by Rope, 2004.
26
27 9. Portland Aerial Tram. http://www.portlandtram.org. Accessed May 11, 2011.
28
29 10. Portland Aerial Tram. Annual Report. 2007.
30
31 11. Telluride. Gondola. http://www.telluride.com/telluride/summer-activities/gondola. Accessed
32 July 13, 2011.
33
34 12. Clifford, H. Inside the True Telluride, Feb. 2004. http://articles.cnn.com/2004-02-
35 05/travel/ski.telluride. Accessed July 13, 2011.
36
37 13. World Gazetteer. http://www.world-gazetteer.com. Accessed May 20, 2011.
38
39 14. Medellin Info. http://www.medellininfo.com. Accessed June 9, 2011.
40
41 15. Maclean’s Magazine. http://www2.macleans.ca. Accessed July 5, 2011.
42
43 16. Gokandy. http://nav.gokandy.com. Accessed July 5, 2011.
44
45 17. Wired Magazine. http://www.wired.com. Accessed July 5, 2011.
 16

1
2 18. Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office. Detailed Proposals for the Tung Chung Cable Car
3 Project invited. April 2001.
4 http://www.hketotyo.gov.hk/japan/jp/english/tungchungcable/topic_tungchugcable. Accessed
5 July 13, 2011.
6
7 19. Leung, W. Ngong Ping 360 Gets Off the Ground at Last. The Standard, Sep. 2006.
8 http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=27609&sid=9978942&c
9 on_type=3. Accessed July 13, 2011.
10
11 20. Ngong Ping 360. http://www.np360.com.hk. Accessed June 22, 2011.
12
13 21. Constantine Hier. Téléphériques. http://www.constantine-hier-
14 aujourdhui.fr/LaVille/travaux_telepheriques.htm. Accessed May 23, 2011.
15
16 22. Online PR Media. http://www.onlineprnews.com. Accessed July 5, 2011.
17
18 23. Snowboard Club. http://www.snowboardclub.co.uk. Accessed July 5, 2011.
19
20 24. eCO2data Website. http://eco2data.com.Accessed May 23, 2011.
 17

2 LIST OF TABLES
3
4 TABLE 1 Service and Technology Characteristics of ART Technologies
5
6 TABLE 2 Service Characteristics of Some ART Applications around the World
7
8
9 LIST OF FIGURES
10
11 FIGURE 1 Roosevelt Island Tramway (a) Original Single-Haul System Cabins (b) New Dual-
12 Haul System Cabins
13
14 FIGURE 2 Portland Tram Car Design

15 FIGURE 3 A Graphical Representation of the Caracas Metrocable system

16

17
 18

TABLE 1 Service and Technology Characteristics of ART Technologies

Bicable
System Traditional Aerial Dual-Haul Aerial Monocable Detachable Tricable Detachable
Detachable
Characteristics Tramway Tramway Gondola (MDG) Gondola (TDG)
Gondola (BDG)
Cabins are suspended from Cabins are
Cabins are suspended Cabins are suspended
one or more fixed cable Cabins are suspended and suspended from
Cable from two fixed from two fixed cables
(called "track ropes") and pulled by the same cable one fixed cable and
Configuration cables and are pulled and are pulled by
are pulled by another cable (a moving loop of cable) are pulled by
by another cable another cable
(called a "haulage rope") another cable
Cabins can’t be Cabins are set at
The two cabins cannot be
detached from the regularly-spaced intervals
detached from the moving
Detachability moving cable (each and they detach from the Same as MDG Same as MDG
cable (the movement of the
cabin operate cable at the terminal for
two cabins is synchronized)
independently) unloading and loading
Maximum # of Depends on line length
Passenger 2 cabins 2 cabins and headway; can have Same as MDG Same as MDG
Cabins 100+ cabins
Max # of Can have multiple
3 stations 3 stations Same as MDG Same as MDG
stations stations
Max Distance
Less than 1000 m Less than 1000 m 350 m 700 m 3000 m
between Towers
High capacity (up to 200 High capacity (more Low capacity (up to 15 Low capacity (up to Medium capacity (up
Cabin Capacity
pass/cabin) than 100 pass/cabin) pass/cabin) 16 pass/cabin) to 35 pass/cabin)
Maximum
Transport 2000 pass/h 2800 pass/h 3600 pass/h 3600 pass/h 6000 pass/h
Capacity
Speed Up to 43.2 km/h Up to 29 km/h Up to 21.6 km/h Up to 21.6 km/h Up to 30.6 km/h
 19

TABLE 2 Service Characteristics of Some ART Applications around the World

Number
Offered
Line Line Peak of
Opening Cabin Line
ART System Country ART Type Length Speed Headway Cabins
Year Capacity Capacity
(m) (km/h) (sec) in
(PPDPH)
Service
Portland Aerial Tram USA Aerial Tram 2007 1005 35.4 78 5 min 936 2
Aerial Tram 1976 960 26 126 7.5 min 1000 2
Roosevelt Island
USA Dual Haul
Tramway* 2011 960 30 110 7.5 min 1500 2
Aerial Tram
Telluride Gondola USA MDG 1996 4000 17.7 4 30 480 32
Line K 2004 2789 18 10 12 3000 93
Medellin
Line J Columbia MDG 2008 2072 18 10 12 3000 119
Metrocable
Line L 2010 4595 22 10 65 550 27
Caracas Metrocable Venezuela MDG 2010 1800 18 10 12 3000 70
Complexo Do Alemao Brazil MDG 2011 3400 21.6 10 12 3000 152
Koblenz Cable Car Germany TDG 2010 890 19.8 35 34 3700 18
Hong
Ngong Ping Cable Car BDG 2006 5700 27 17 18 3500 112
Kong
Sentosa Island Cable Singapore BDG 1974 1650 14.4 6 15 1400 81
Car
Cable Constantine Algeria MDG 2008 1516 21.6 15 22.5 2400 35

* The system was modernized in 2010 and was converted to a Dual-Haul Aerial Tram instead of an Aerial Tram
 20

FIGURE 1 Roosevelt Island Tramway (a) Original Single-Haul System Cabins (b) New Dual-Haul System Cabins
 21

FIGURE 2 Portland Tram Car Design1

1
http://www.portlandtram.org/, Portland Aerial Tramway Website. Acessed May 11, 2011.
 22

FIGURE 3 A Graphical Representation of the Caracas Metrocable system2

2
http://gondolaproject.com, The Gondola Project. Accessed May 8, 2011.

View publication stats