Post by Steven Dale
Light Rail only exists in cities as a form of public transit.
Subways and metros only exist in cites as a form of public transit.
BRT only exists in cites as a form of public transit.
Cable Propelled Transit and Urban Gondolas only exist in . . . oh, wait a minute.
As it currently stands, we have little popular understanding about what costs are associated with an LRT, Metro or BRT being located in an urban public transit system.
We accept that to build an LRT system in a city costs x because LRT only exists in cities. We have nothing to compare it with. After all, there are no rural LRT systems.
But with cable we have a different situation. With cable, the vast majority of systems we have are not urban public transit systems. As such, any price premiums we witness (such as what we’re seeing in London and Vancouver/Burnaby) can logically be assumed to be directly correlated to being located in an urban setting.
But that’s not all.
Given the price point of the Koblenz Rheinseilbahn – which is decidedly an urban system – we also know that there will be a significant price premium associated with the technology acting in a public transit rather than recreational role.
Suddenly we have a way to analyze what exactly are the financial burdens a city and its transit system (and their attendant bureaucracies) place upon any given transit technology.
That’s sure to be some policy-wonks’ dream come true.
Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.
Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.