A quick look at some of the things that happened this week in the world of cable cars, urban gondolas, and cable propelled transit:
- The Mariche Metrocable in Caracas, Venezuela is officially inaugurated.
- A neighbourhood blog in Seattle suggests using urban gondolas as a solution to the local “Montlake Mess” transport problem.
- Politicians in London consider the possibility of the Emirates Air Line becoming a “white elephant.”
- Staying in the UK, local reaction to the proposed Birmingham Cable Car.
- And lastly, because it’s Friday, a Lego aficionado designs a series of hyper-realistic models of San Francisco’s famed cable cars:
If I could buy that right now, I would.
6 Comments
London – the site cited shows a minimum day passages of 4381 in mid-november , at a lowest fare avalaible of 3,20 £ this means 14.019 £/day
Even without advertising revenues, this could cover the operational costs. (maybe not capital ones), a thing that could only considered a dream for other TfL systems.
Giorgio is entirely correct. Also consider that majority of people ride the tube to and from the gondola, creating an additional revenue stream. Whether or not we agree that a public transit agency should have embarked on a project like this, there is no arguing that it is profitable.
This is something Nick and I are discussing internally. It’s such a politically dangerous project, we’re not entirely sure how to discuss it. Despite the screams of low ridership, back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the system is going to turn a profit.
It really does come down to a question of optics and politics. Should a transit agency be engaged in tourism? Big question.
From a balance sheet and financial point of view, Transit agency SHOULD be engaged in tourism , since this could pay for all the rest of services that are worldwide done at a loss.
Perfect example is Venice transport agency ACTV, where the tourist ticket – nearly six times that for “locals” makes >80% of revenues
Not all transit agencies are created equally, and they will all will have differing mandates depending on a wide range of factors. So it is probably not advisable to lump them all together in this debate.
As a general rule, however, I think we can probably agree that a transit agency should not engage in a tourist project that would be detrimental overall to its core mandate (whatever that may be).
Tourism is, fundamentally, a transportation problem. Quite simply, we need to move tourists from Point A to Point B. So perhaps the question becomes: Why shouldn’t transit agency be regularly involved in “tourist” projects?
Also, tourism is generally a strong business generator for a city as a whole. Local governments are often asked to stimulate business in hundreds of ways, tourism being one. Go to any tourist area and you’ll see ways that the government has stepped in – from central planning of hotel districts to streetlights to sidewalks. Why not transit?