06
Jul

2011

A Massive Learning Opportunity

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.

Economics
4
Comments

Comments

  1. matthias
    July 7, 2011 – 1:56 am
    There are hundreds of rural "LRT" still in Operation all over Europe and once there where even more. Just they are not built recently and are not called LRT but Branch Line or Narrow gauge rail. still the vehicles are similar to LRT and they have some street running tracks. And there are even some Alpine subways e.g. Jungfraubahn as rack and pinion rail or MetroAlpin as a funicular. You could also argue that buying a house or a flat in some country side is much cheaper that buying one in a attractive city. Its very simple the more attractive the location the more expensive the property. For transit system this translation the more potential passengers the more expensive the land purchase and construction cost.
  2. LX
    July 7, 2011 – 5:48 am
    Just wanted to write the same. I agree with matthias. There are so many, and it really is fun to see those - because it's not how you usually see them in action. However lots of them are connected to a city (direct or periphery).
  3. Guenther Ecker
    July 7, 2011 – 5:38 pm
    # "the Koblenz Rheinseilbahn – which is decidedly an urban system – " The Koblenz Rheinseilbahn is more a ropeway for tourists, an exhibition ropeway or a viewing ropeway than an urban system. Yes it has one gondola like an urban ropeway to demonstrate it as an urban system. There are many ropeways on the area of a city or town, built for tourists [ Grenoble (France), Cologne (Germany), Bregenz (Austria), Zagreb (Kroatia), Funchal (Portugal), Santorini ( Greece), Haifa (Israel)... ], but therefore are they "URBAN" ropeways? I believe, it is better to identify or give the role "urban ropeways" only to lines for public mass transportation, for commuters, students, shoppers and leisure behaviour, less than for tourists. Related to the user, not only to the area. I am not be fully convinced, if a ropeway to an Asian Temple, Zoo or island with an amusement and fun park is an "urban ropeway" too. It is just not simply.
  4. Guenther Ecker
    July 7, 2011 – 6:07 pm
    # "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." Have a look here: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp78/guidebook/tcrp78.pdf (Table 5-5, at II-51), but it isn't popular understanding. Or do you think, the average transit user understands not the difference, what costs are associated with an LRT, Metro or BRT being located in an urban public transit system.?

Leave a comment

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.