Roosevelt Island Tram « The Gondola Project

Roosevelt Island Tram

09
Feb

2012

Where do you put the towers?

On this blog there’s a lot of talk about cable as a flexible and adaptable technology for urban transit. CPT can travel above roads and traffic, go through buildings, and cross rivers and gorges. But for all that to work there needs to be space for towers and stations, too.

So what happens when a city’s simply got no space?

They deal.

Take New York City, for example. The Roosevelt Island Tram’s been dealing with this problem for 35 years by building a tower right over a road. Of course they did, because the system has three towers, two of which are located in Manhattan, the most densely populated New York City borough and the country’s densest county.

The Roosevelt Tram tower sits right on top of 60th St. -- CC image by Flickr user David Berkowitz.

Then there’s a system in Romania, where the city of Piatra Neamt built a cable car system, of which an entire kilometer traverses the city — towers and all.

To do this they built a tower in a road median . . .

Image courtesy of Doppelmayr.

. . . one over a parking lot . . .

Image courtesy of Doppelmayr.

. . . and even one on top of a sidewalk, so as not to obstruct pedestrian traffic underneath.

Image courtesy of Doppelmayr.

Now, we’re not saying this is the best way to go about designing towers. Remember, there are practical designs and then there are pretty designs.

London and Portland have the aesthetics down pat. Both cities dedicated a lot of thought and effort (not to mention a few dollars) to create stunning architectural towers, and in return have (or will soon have) practical works of art, so to speak.

But the adaptability seen in New York and Piatra Neamt should not go unnoticed either. As drab and industrial as the tower designs are, they represent a collaboration that can exist between municipalities and transit planning when both parties add a bit of imagination and ingenuity to the mix.

The important question here is how to blend the practicality of New York and Piatra Neamt with the beauty of London and Portland. That’s the challenge and the opportunity.

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.

Comment

01
Sep

2011

Cable Propelled Transit in Google Earth

Thanks to Julia for finding this:

We know we’re making progress when a Cable Propelled Transit system makes its way into Google Earth 3D. Apparently the Roosevelt Island Tram can now be found in Google Earth by selecting to show all 3D Buildings.

Towers, stations, cables and cabins included:

Screen grab, Google Earth.

I love living in the future.

Now what are the chances we can get some other systems in there?

Roosevelt Island Tram

Comments

17
Dec

2010

Cable Propelled Transit: An Open Technology?

Plaques depicting the the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway's original builder, Von Roll, and the rebuilder, Doppelmayr. Image from flickr user bossco.

The new Roosevelt Island Tram (RIT) is likely to generate renewed interest in cable transit and urban gondolas. What it may also do is demonstrate to the wider transit planning community that Cable Propelled Transit is an “open” platform and not (necessarily) subject to the issue of proprietary technology.

Let me explain:

The Roosevelt Island Tram was built in the 1970’s by the Swiss lift manufacturer Von Roll. Two decades later, Von Roll was acquired by the Austrian manufacturer Doppelmayr in 1996. You would expect, therefore, that the Roosevelt Island Tram would’ve been rebuilt by Doppelmayr as well.

If you did expect that, you’d be wrong.

The Roosevelt Island Tram was in fact rebuilt by Leitner-Poma; Doppelmayr’s closest and most direct competitor.

I have no knowledge about the selection process behind the RIT rebuild. I don’t know why Leitner-Poma was chosen over Doppelmayr, nor do I really care. I don’t even know if Doppelmayr participated in the bidding process or even if there was a bidding process. None of this matters to me.

What matters to me is this: Having three different companies (two of which are fierce competitors) working on the same system over a span of 30 years demonstrates that cable transit is an open technology.

That is, the fundamentals are so common across the industry that any of the players can work on each other’s systems. That encourages competition and keeps prices low. It also prevents white elephant situations where cities find themselves trapped out-of-production technologies, desperate for parts that no longer exist; a situation plaguing Toronto’s ill-fated ICTS vehicles.

The argument for open technologies in transit is common enough that it took me just under one minute to find three espousing the idea:

Regarding monorails, Seattlepi says; “It is a proprietary technology, meaning a transit system will be stuck with the same technology from a single company for future expansion.”
About Aerorail, Transit Malaysia says; “Aerorail is a relatively untried proprietary technology – thus leading to concerns about the future operations and maintenance of the line as well as the related costs.“
Concerning gondolas, a commenter on Skyscraperpage has this to say: “It’s proprietary technology: once you build it you’re stuck with the same company that’s free to raise prices.“

Try it yourself. Google “proprietary technology” and “transit” and/or “public transportation” and you’ll find no shortage of arguments in favor of open platforms. None favor closed platforms.

(Now that I think about it, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a strong argument in favor of closed platforms in public transportation. If you can think of one, I’m all ears, but I’m not sure it exists.)

As transit moves towards things like smart fare cards and ticketing systems, the current debate about “openness” centers around information technology platforms, but the principal still applies to vehicle and mode choice.

Basically, cities don’t like playing with proprietary technology. They need it to be as open as possible. Certainly every transit manufacturer will have their own patents and intellectual property, but at the end of the day, the fundamentals behind a given technology have to be similar enough across the industry to allow any major competitor to build, operate and maintain any given system.

Collectively, the Doppelmayr-Garaventa Group and Leitner-Poma (and/or their parent companies) have built 22,000 ropeway systems around the world. Those systems need parts, operators and maintainers. Yes, there are subtle differences between urban ropeway systems and non-urban systems, but the fundamentals are the same. It seems highly unlikely that any city that chooses to build an urban gondola would have any trouble finding parts in the future.

And it’s not like these companies are going out of business any time soon:

Leitner was founded in 1888 and Doppelmayr in 1892. If you want industry stability, that should speak for itself. For the sake of comparison; Bombardier, one of the world’s largest LRT manufacturers, is a relative youngster. It was founded in 1942.

By virtue of this attachment to history, the industry uses (literally) centuries old techniques and technologies not subject to strict intellectual property and patents. The technology is common enough across the industry to allow different companies to work on and maintain each other’s systems.

In other words: Cable Propelled Transit is an open technology. While examples shouldn’t be necessary to prove this fact, it’s great that the Roosevelt Island Tram demonstrates that the cable industry is indeed up to the task of openness.

Engineering / Roosevelt Island Tram

Comments

14
Dec

2010

Roosevelt Island Tram – Original Video

Gareth Long is an artist in New York and one of my oldest and dearest friends.

Sadly, due to the two-headed monster known as Geography and Life, we rarely get to see each other. But given the recent reopening of the Roosevelt Island Tram, it seemed like a logical opportunity to work together and see what Gareth could come up with.

We’d hoped to have it up last week, but bad weather prevented the feel Gareth was looking for. Nevertheless, here we have it: The Gondola Project’s first original video documentation of a cable transit system, the rebuilt Roosevelt Island Tram:

Roosevelt Island Tram

Comments

02
Dec

2010

Roosevelt Island Tram: Reopened!

The rebuilt Roosevelt Island Tram. Image by flickr user bitchcakesny.

On Tuesday, New York’s Roosevelt Island Tram reopened after a 9 month, $25 million refurbishment.

The rebuild, conducted by Poma, transforms the system from an Aerial Tram to a Funifor-type system. That means vehicles will operate independently of one another. When one vehicle is taken out of service, the other can still be operational. This should have a significant impact on speed, wait times, quality of service and capacity. For obvious reasons, the system will still be called the Roosevelt Island Tram and not the Roosevelt Island Funifor.

For a history of the Roosevelt Island Tram, please check out an article I wrote for Urban Omnibus entitled Off the Road and Into the Skies. You can find the direct link here or a link by way of The Gondola Project here.

We’re hoping to have fresh, original video of the new system for you next week. In the mean time, here’s what the rest of the internet is saying about the reopening:

Transportation Nation interviews Roosevelt Island resident Cynthia Baird whose going to wait a day or two before riding the system “in case it falls.”

The Epoch Times discusses several of the new redundant fail-safe mechanisms built into the system.

The New York Observer has a great video from NYPOST.com.

Gadling’s Mike Barish has some strong observations about the systems usefulness and attractiveness.

The Greenwich Time carries a piece from the Associated Press detailing some of the people behind the scenes of the Tram.

The Gothamist describes the reopening.

Roosevelt Island Tram

Comments

22
Oct

2010

The 7 Most Important Aerial Cable Systems In The World (For Various Reasons)

Others might disagree with my selection, but if you’re new to the world of Cable Propelled Transit (CPT) and Urban Gondolas, these are the 7 aerial systems you need to know about:

Caracas Metrocable / Constantine Telepherique / Funivia del Renon / Medellin MetroCable / Portland Aerial Tram / Roosevelt Island Tram

Comments

10
Jul

2010

Aerial Trams vs. Gondolas

I recently spoke with a cable engineer who thought it completely absurd that people use Aerial Tram statistics to negate the feasibility of Urban Gondolas.

When I told him such confusion was the norm rather than the exception, he became flustered. He simply couldn’t accept that people make that mistake. They’re two completely different performance packages! he exclaimed. They should know the difference!

Listen, if you’re a regular reader of The Gondola Project, then you know the difference between an Aerial Tram and a Gondola (MDG, BDG or 3S). You also know why Gondolas are more suitable to urban environments and fully-integrated CPT installations.

You know that Aerial Trams have long wait times, little ability to implement intermediary stations and corners, low capacities and high costs. You also know that a Funifor negates those problems to some extent but not without significant cost increases.

But not everyone reads The Gondola Project (probably the greatest understatement in the history of blogging).

This is why a post over at David Marcus’ Liveable Norwalk caught my eye.

In that post, David suggests a CPT system for his hometown of Norwalk, Connecticut. It’s a modest proposal; a 1.5 mile long 4 station line. It wasn’t, however, the proposal that caught my eye. It was the response.

Responding to the post was Cap’n Transit, of Cap’n Transit Rides Again. For anyone who reads the transit blogs, the Cap’n should be more than familiar. He’s a prolific blogger and commenter with vast knowledge about public transportation.

He also gets it dead wrong in his response to the Norwalk Gondola:

Says Cap’n Transit:

. . . the urban gondola was first introduced right here in New York City. When they reopen the Roosevelt Island Tramway, come down and try it. You’ll find that wait time has hardly been eliminated.

Says David in response:

I have to distinguish between a tram like Roosevelt Island and a gondola like in Medellin. When I speak of gondolas, I mean the smaller cars that hold 6-10 people and come by every 10 seconds or so.

Says the Cap’n:

Thanks, David! Do they really come that frequently in Medellin? Are there more than 10 people at a time who want to ride? Has anyone tried them?

In the Cap’n’s defence, he was open-minded enough to notice he might have been incorrect. But besides that:

Can the average person really tell you what the difference between an Aerial Tram and a Gondola is?

Does the average person know that the Roosevelt Island Tram is actually to be replaced with a Funifor-type system?

Does the average person know the difference between a Funifor and an Aerial Tram?

Problem, however, is not with the average person, it’s with the knowledgeable person. Cap’n Transit knows a lot about transit, but he clearly knows little about Cable Propelled Transit. And that’s not his fault! After all, we don’t know what we don’t know.

The cable engineer can complain all he wants that people should know the difference between Aerial Trams and Gondolas, but they don’t. Whose fault do you think that is?

And maybe more importantly: Do you think complaining about it is going to change it?

Aerial Trams / Blogs & Other Sites / Funifor / Gondola / Research Issues / Roosevelt Island Tram

Comments

The Gondola Project