|
|
|
muller877
Senior Member
Why did they choose a 4-car funicular as an option vs an underground cable car-design with 40 smaller cabins? (a series of gondolas)
The 4-car design will still bunch people up creating issues on the stairs at Union. If they went with a series of smaller cabins on a loop it would not have these problems.
ADRM
Senior Member
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Good question, but the most important number is true ppphpd (Peak People Per Hour Per Direction).
If the continuous gondola that is able to fit in the existing streetcar loop can only move 960 or 1920 ppphpd -- and a large 4-unit funicular (imagine an unmanned train-coach-sized funicular car) manages to move more people, then small bunching (that is emptied fast) is still preferable to as line that continually gets longer like a busy Whister or Alps gondola lineup during peak season at the beginning of a ramping-up day...
I'm not sure if this is the best solution for the LRT loop, but details certainly matter here. If the funicular is so good it behaves like a defacto very fast single-coach subway route (huge funicular cars with three or four doors) with only 1-minute waiting times. Then that can soften the pain of an extra transfer -- maybe even slightly less painful than waiting for a large elevator in a busy highrise. There are funiculars that can go 50 kph, although normally on longer routes. A proper solution, if there is the werewithal to do it properly, could actually outperform the current LRT loop.
From what it appears, the existing loop could actually capable of creative solutions that moves more than twice as many people as it currently does today (without expanding tunnels or waiting areas) -- it is currently bottlenecked by its design not being very new-streetcar-friendly, and continuous utilization limited by streetcar route supply and streetcar bunching/famines. Turning it into a defacto horizontal elevator with 1-minute-or-less waiting times, would move an incredible number of ppphpd between Union and waterfront -- without expanding internal volume (via other mechanical means like efficient moving platforms, high-traffic funicular, gondola, etc). You'd need a kick-ass sheltered station at the waterfront to accomodate through-streetcars that can now go east/west without going into the loop. It, at least, has to be more fun than waiting for a very busy skyscraper elevator -- then I could be convinced.
But whatever has to be done, needs to be better than the status quo: Move more people through the LRT loop as a defacto ultrafrequent automated microtransit line that has more in common with a skyscraper elevator (or even superlong escalator) than a streetcar/subway.
EDIT: Chicago 1893, moving walkway with seats on one edge of it:
Many variants (cable cars, funiculars, moving walkways with seats on it, etc) -- properly done with a good waterfront through-station (east/west LRT), then it is theoretically psychologically to make it feel like an escalator link rather than the torture of an extra transfer.
Attachments
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Are there any extant examples of a system like that beyond the Mi Teleférico aerial gondola system in La Paz and Metrocable in Medellin used for mass transit purposes? Somehow it didn't strike me as a particularly cheap system, especially vis-a-vis the versatility of LRT/platform expansion.
AoD
Last edited:
mdrejhon
Senior Member
I suspect it probably has more in common with a higher-capacity-and-shorter equivalent of Pearson's Link than a funicular. My impression is that this isn't a traditional funicular, but a high-frequency high-capacity 4-coach horizontal cable car not normally called funiculars. Basically, essentially, turning the LRT loop into its unmanned cable-driven-"LRV" system (with 4 coaches potentially same size as current new streetcars) that is immune to bunching/famine issues and gets all lineups moving fast. That was the impression I got: More of an unmanned high-throughput horizontal elevator, essentially.
You'll need a comfortable station capable of emptying 2 or 3 LRVs simultaneously so people can disembark/embark quicker -- basically a capacity-shifting to an easier/bigger/cheaper-to-build station (even cut-and-cover) -- and trying to treat the Union-Waterfront link like a sort of an escalator, finding the highest-capacity unmanned people mover type of system that is loosely based on cablecar technologies.
If theoretically properly done, with sensible common sense decisions (hah) -- then it actually speed up the waterfront LRT since they are no longer bottlenecked (bunching/famines) by the Union loop.
You'd need a kick-ass waterfront station though.
There are many ways to screw this up, but doing this properly could boost ppphpd of the rest of the route and reduce lineup sizes inside cramped Union, with an easier-to-do-larger-underground-station at waterfront -- turning waterfront into an extension of Union, essentially.
You'll need a comfortable station capable of emptying 2 or 3 LRVs simultaneously so people can disembark/embark quicker -- basically a capacity-shifting to an easier/bigger/cheaper-to-build station (even cut-and-cover) -- and trying to treat the Union-Waterfront link like a sort of an escalator, finding the highest-capacity unmanned people mover type of system that is loosely based on cablecar technologies.
If theoretically properly done, with sensible common sense decisions (hah) -- then it actually speed up the waterfront LRT since they are no longer bottlenecked (bunching/famines) by the Union loop.
You'd need a kick-ass waterfront station though.
There are many ways to screw this up, but doing this properly could boost ppphpd of the rest of the route and reduce lineup sizes inside cramped Union, with an easier-to-do-larger-underground-station at waterfront -- turning waterfront into an extension of Union, essentially.
Last edited:
muller877
Senior Member
The 2041 projection of max 3700 pphpd for transit users...but I really don't believe it. You may be right that the throughput for a gondola is not enough (around 2000 pphpd). I was just thinking of a solution that didn't include building a large platform area in the middle. Plus you don't need the middle station exactly 1/2 way down the line. Plus the ability to bring it all the way to the ferry docks.
...plus a lot cheaper.
muller877
Senior Member
Caracas
Cali
Algeria (largest system in the world)
Singapore
Ankara
Santorini
Russia (Volga River crossing)
...and of course NYC
mdrejhon
Senior Member
You sure? Expanding the loop under a massive station will be incredibly inordinately expensive; it is quite possible that to achieve appropriate targets, it might be possibly cost far more so to achieve -- than an expanded cut-and-cover waterfront station and the conversion of the existing loop into a high-capacity peoplemover type system (funicular, gondola, cablecar, moving walkway with seats, whatever).
Ideally, for expediency's sake there really don't need to be any halfway stations, but I suppose that's because it's a looped 4-vehicle cable car, might as well put in intermediate stations since all cablecar vehicles may have to stop simultaneously. (If any single-loop cablecar technology is being used).
If you include horizontal cablecars in addition to those called "funiculars", add:
Toronto (Pearson Link)
San Francisco
etc.
Pearson Link is essentially funicular technology, too. (A much longer and less frequent one, back-and-fourth type, and with only two vehicles)
Usually the word "funicular" applies to a steep cable-pulled railroad slope with long waits. But Union-to-waterfront isn't that sloping.
That's why I interpret this as generic cablecar technology utilizing relatively large LRV-sized cars, of which hundreds exists worldwide, some with very short waits, for over a century. And this can be a full continuous loop (NOT back-and-fourth); further increasing ppphpd.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Aerial_Tram
3700 people per day, which is substantial but not x.xK per hour.
- Paul
3700 people per day, which is substantial but not x.xK per hour.
- Paul
mdrejhon
Senior Member
But, isn't what being proposed has way more common with Pearson Link (horizontal version of funicular technology) than Portland Aerial Tram? Isn't that totally apples versus oranges?
Jeff Morgan
Active Member
The Atlanta airport tram carries over 200,000 people per day.
Source: http://www.atl.com/about-atl/atl-factsheet/
dowlingm
Senior Member
We're not talking about Link as being an attractive technology that we should use in this situation... are we? Link took an age to construct and has been done for at least one if not more than one lengthy maintenance full-outages. To my mind it's a rattly half measure which if the Feds didn't have their hand so far into GTAA's pocket might have been a self propelled vehicle instead.
I haven't used the City Centre Airport tunnel yet but for comparison purposes that looks like about 175m vs 500m for a Bay pedestrian tunnel?
mdrejhon
Senior Member
I don't like the use of the Link design, and perhaps the whole loop design should be scrapped.
The bottom line, of my intended "comparison", is cable cars covers a huge universe, some with short waits and huge ppphpd.
What seems to be suggested is a high-capacity horizontal looped cable car, not a diagonal back-and-fourth cable car. Even comparing to Link is still bananas-to-apples, but it is more apples-vs-apples than an aerial tram.
In other words: Why do they call it a funicular?
When it does have more in common with a variety of horizontal cable cars (good and bad). It only invites comparisons with low-capacity long-wait aerial trams and gondolas, when it should be properly compared with other cable cars (both good and bad).
Currently, it looks like:
Looped: Yes
Back-and-fourth: No
Vehicle count: 4
Station count: 4
Diagonal Slope: No
Aerial: No
Vehicle size: Usually larger
Vehicle speed: Usually faster
Capacity per day: Usually larger
Assessment: Traditional looped horizontal cable car technology
Which is a looped level cable car route (with a tiny grade) -- not a common diagonal funicular:
Looped: No
Back-and-fourth: Yes
Vehicle count: 1 or 2
Station count: 2
Diagonal Slope: Yes
Aerial: No
Vehicle size: Usually smaller
Vehicule speed: Usually slower
Capacity per day: Usually smaller
Assessment: Common funicular
We all, simultaneously, should find the fastest, best cable cars (worldwide), and rip that apart, debate more efficiently, and love or hate it.
Sure, 2-station funiculars and gondolas are common substitutes for each other for a mountain, but, rheoretically, where's the mountain?
They are technologically identical (rail based, cable propelled) in many ways but the word "funicular" creates different wild comparisions (to much more unrelated technology) because of semantics.
Heck, throw in elevators too -- unmanned automated vertical rail-based cable-propelled peoplemovers with multiple stations (floors) which is a better (and less silly) comparison than aerial trams in this case. Even many (not all) unmanned cable cars worldwide behave like horizontal elevators!
And, like LRT vs Steeetcars is slowly fuzzying with the Spadina LRT/streetcar, but neither is an aerial ropeway. (The recent pantograph tests checked off another "slowly becoming an LRT" checkbox. And eventually better traffic priority, rapid transit speeds, and level boarding.)
It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a traditional cable car, not a diagonal funicular, in semantics. We'd all best debate and rip apart accordingly. Literally, addressing to them: Why was the word "funicular" chosen? This is a duck!
<Attachment: duck_quacking.mp3>
Last edited:
muller877
Senior Member
They can almost get the same capacity out of a "pinched loop" system with 4 cars versus their proposed system. A pinched loop system has only one terminal on either end which allows for easy boarding/exits (versus trying to figure out which car is leaving next).
It still is 1 minute headways (and 2 minutes from one end to the other). Just saves on the size of the terminal at either end (and the cost of digging out the larger terminals).