Cable car potential in Chicago

[nomarandlee]

Was reading this article the other day about London implementing cable cars and thought it sounds rather awesome and I have before wondered to myself if such cable cars could ever make sense in Chicago.

So are there are potential points from a tourist or practical transit perspective where such cable cars could make sense in Chicago?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15217173

7 October 2011

Emirates sponsors Thames cable car

A private sponsor for a new Thames cable car river crossing has been announced in a 10-year deal worth £36m.

The cable car system is being sponsored by Dubai-based airline Emirates and will be known as the Emirates Air Line.

It will create a direct link between the 02 Arena in Greenwich and the ExCel exhibition centre, in east London.

The total cost of the scheme, to be completed in summer 2012, is £60m, with additional funding coming from third party funding and fare revenue.

Initially, Transport for London (TfL) estimated the cost for the project would be £25m and said it would use only private finance to pay for it.

But last month TfL pushed its forecast up to about £60m.

'Bird's eye vistas'

London Underground managing director Mike Brown said: "At £36m the sponsorship by Emirates covers a significant portion of the £45m construction value.

"This multi-million pound agreement is proof that our funding strategy is working and we are confident that the outstanding upfront construction costs can be recouped from a range of sources including an application to the European Union Regional Development Fund, additional sponsor agreements, retail space rental and fare revenue."

The cable car will run between two new stations, set to be named Emirates Greenwich Peninsula, in south London and Emirates Royal Docks, in north London.

The service will be able to carry up to 2,500 people per hour in each direction at peak times.

It is anticipated that it will carry two million passengers a year.

Liberal Democrat London Assembly member Mike Tuffrey said: "TfL admits that this sponsorship deal only meets 80% of the construction cost...........

[krnboy1009]

Where is the cable car going to be at?

[BorisMolotov]

I only see this as a tourist thing. Unfortunately then the only place for this would be Millennium and Grant Parks, and that would look awfully tacky. Think the ski chairs at Summerfest but only bigger and taller and more out of place and more useless.

[Mr Downtown]

Don't have to look to London, Portland has a new aerial tramway, and the one from Roosevelt Island to Manhattan has been running for 25 years.

They're best suited for bridging a valley or water channel, I think. Over land the low speed seems frustratingly leisurely compared to other modes. So a line from Willis Tower to Northwest Tower would be cool to see, but probably not a good transit investment. About the only route that comes to mind would be a link from McCormick Place to the southern tip of Northerly Island, but I think a simple passenger ferry would be much more cost-effective and easier to adjust to seasonal demand.

Technically, the Sky Ride at the Century of Progress was a transporter bridge rather than an aerial tramway, but here's a good excuse to see an old postcard:


South Loop Historical Society

[Kngkyle]

The only real possibility I see would be along Navy Pier. And that would be more like one of those amusement park skyrides than a real method of transportation. I suppose they could jazz it up a bit by making it go up a few hundred feet in the air. But I think a bigger ferris wheel would be more appropriate for Navy Pier.

[desertpunk]

A carnival ride? Seriously? Just because fashionistas in London are happy to junk up their skyline with crap doesn't mean Chicago or anyone else should.


This is a real tramway, not a carnival ride into a parking lot:
image hosted on flickr

Roosevelt Island tram by hpulling, on Flickr

It serves a vital function for residents of Roosevelt Island and it offers great views too.

[I-275westcoastfl]

This wouldn't be a good idea for Chicago, you know these aren't safe to use in heavy winds which Chicago is kind of famous for.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

The only real possibility I see would be along Navy Pier. And that would be more like one of those amusement park skyrides than a real method of transportation. I suppose they could jazz it up a bit by making it go up a few hundred feet in the air. But I think a bigger ferris wheel would be more appropriate for Navy Pier.

Meh, I would rather ride one of these cable cars then sit round and round on a ferris wheel but perhaps that's just me.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by I-275westcoastfl

you know these aren't safe to use in heavy winds which Chicago is kind of famous for.

First, the wind thing relates to Chicago politics, not the weather.

Second, aerial trams have been exposed to extreme conditions the world over for over 75 years as a mountain transportation option. Wind during a snow storm at 11,000 feet trumps our little winter spats nine times out of ten.

[Mr Downtown]

It's not that the cabins "derail" in high winds, it's that it makes the passengers very uncomfortable swaying back and forth several stories above ground with no escape. Chicago is the nation's 18th windiest city, but it does get really strong gusts each spring and fall, and sometimes during summer storms.

[RobH]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

A carnival ride? Seriously? Just because fashionistas in London are happy to junk up their skyline with crap doesn't mean Chicago or anyone else should.

First time I've heard Boris called that

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

First, the wind thing relates to Chicago politics, not the weather.

Second, aerial trams have been exposed to extreme conditions the world over for over 75 years as a mountain transportation option. Wind during a snow storm at 11,000 feet trumps our little winter spats nine times out of ten.

I think untitledreality is right. 95% of the time mountain cable cars are likely to face much more severe winds and swaying then anything Chicago is likely to encounter. I imagine compared to most mountain cable cars that the weather and conditions would be positively tranquil by comparison.

[BorisMolotov]

First time I've heard Boris called that

Didn't even realize that comment was directed at me.

Nevertheless, I stand by my argument. Chicago doesn't have any wide rivers or things of that ilk to cross with a non-conventional transportation mode such as a cable car or tram. The only purpose it would have would be a short-range tourist attraction. Now a monorail on the other hand... that would be cool.

[fjordbjord]

you don't really need a river, these things are great just to go over traffic, that's a city's ultimate topographical-like challenge

i think the last thing navy pier or millenium park needs is a carnival ride. on the other hand, connecting one of these from one el line to the next could help turn the cta into a circular for way less than the cost of a new pink line. it would attract tourists and commuter folks alike

[krnboy1009]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

A carnival ride? Seriously? Just because fashionistas in London are happy to junk up their skyline with crap doesn't mean Chicago or anyone else should.


This is a real tramway, not a carnival ride into a parking lot:
image hosted on flickr

Roosevelt Island tram by hpulling, on Flickr

It serves a vital function for residents of Roosevelt Island and it offers great views too.

Not really a vital service, they do have a subway station on the island.

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by krnboy1009

Not really a vital service, they do have a subway station on the island.

But the tramway was built before that station opened and, except for a crappy bridge to Queens, was the only direct way into Manhattan for Roosevelt Island residents until they got their subway stop. So maybe not as vital as before, but certainly more vital than a glorified ski lift into a parking lot.

[skyduster]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

A carnival ride? Seriously? Just because fashionistas in London are happy to junk up their skyline with crap doesn't mean Chicago or anyone else should.

+1

I mean, come on people, let's be serious.

As mentioned above, cable cars are meant to bridge topographic gaps. To use an example from a big city where cable cars have a legitimate purpose: in Rio de Janeiro, you can only get up the steep Sugarloaf Mountain (where you can get a great view of the city) by cable car. Two cable cars, actually. The first one takes you from the bottom to the peak of the shorter Morro da Urca. And from there, the second cable car to the peak of Sugarloaf (Pão de Açúcar).

Chicago is completely flat, and contiguous (ie, there's no thick body of water dividing the city, like the East River in NYC).

Originally Posted by BorisMolotov

Now a monorail on the other hand... that would be cool.

Heavens, no. Monorails don't belong anywhere outside Epcot. The 60s futurist movement died along with the 60s decade.

[fjordbjord]

but why pigeon hole the idea to mountains/topography only?
these things are electric - so no fumes, quiet - unlike a bus or train, and you don't need to wait for them, because there's one leaving every minute or less. believe me, i would much much rather jump on one of these then wait for a cta bus to arrive on schedule ... aka 50 minutes late and full ... plus they don't get stuck in rush hour traffic

the one on sugarloaf is just a glorified elevator, but the point of having an awesome view should only help sell the idea, its like how the red line has a cool view, but then when you go under ground it pretty much sucks. rio did just open a second gondola line, as part of the transit network, in the complexo do alemao. it links favela residents to the commuter rail. only time will tell how successful it is though

[skyduster]

Originally Posted by fjordbjord

but why pigeon hole the idea to mountains/topography only?
these things are electric - so no fumes, quiet - unlike a bus or train

Light rail is electric and quiet, too. Heavy-rail trains can also be electric and can be made to be quiet.

Originally Posted by fjordbjord

believe me, i would much much rather jump on one of these then wait for a cta bus to arrive on schedule

Where in Chicago would you put it?

Originally Posted by fjordbjord

... aka 50 minutes late and full ... plus they don't get stuck in rush hour traffic

But they're slow. You could build, say, a light rail system with dedicated right-of-way lanes.

The point is, where in Chicago would you put a cable car? And wouldn't it look just tacky?

Originally Posted by fjordbjord

the one on sugarloaf is just a glorified elevator...

No, it's a cable car, doing what cable cars were intended for: either bridging a topographic gap (across a valley), or climbing up a steep mountain, which is the case at Sugarloaf.

Originally Posted by fjordbjord

rio did just open a second gondola line, as part of the transit network, in the complexo do alemao. it links favela residents to the commuter rail. only time will tell how successful it is though

But again, we're talking about a peripheral area of a very hilly city. Where in Chicago would this go?

[fjordbjord]

rail, yes, is electric, can be quiet, although in chicago is not (there's always the scrub of the rail and the rattle of the tracks). i'm not saying cable should replace rail at all. i'm suggesting it is another option. one that should be considered. cable is much less expensive then rail, especially full right of way rail, or subways. and can be built quicker. and it's off the ground so its different than BRT.

i don't know where chicago would put this necessarily, but it would depend on where the city thinks there is a need for new or updated fixed link transit to. a cable route could run along the water or an existing transit corridor, such as a rail line or road. i think it has potential for connecting some of the outlying el lines (a circular!), so that you don't have to ride all the way downtown to transfer all the time. or it could be incorporated in place of one of the older and more decrepit stretches of el lines that the city is trying to make plans for.

as for speed, its all relative. a bus could potentially drive at high speeds (the 147 express goes at least 45 down lakeshore) but in traffic a bus can only go as fast as traffic, plus stopping every block or two. in chicago the buses average a speed of 20 mph, plus wait times, which can be upwards of 20 or 30 minutes. a train can go much faster, especially with full ROW, but, the currently the CTA does not always operate at max speeds. they slow at construction, for poor scheduling (when tracks meet up or there is a delay ahead) and at turns. the north end of the red line alone has 20 turns where speed is reduced below 35 mph.

currently gondola technology can travel ~20 mph, with no wait times, and an aerial tram is much closer 30 mph. this is not something to replace a subway, but i think it has a strong argument as a compliment to a subway.

as for looking tacky, it's a matter of opinion, but here are some images i've come across that don't seem all that lame:





from: http://gondolaproject.com/2010/09/14...-the-vehicles/