Cable Car as a Mobility Alternative

In the interview, Reinhard Fitz, Head of International Business Development at Doppelmayr, explains where cable cars can ideally complement public transport. Right from the first moments, it becomes clear that Fitz is an absolute realist and, unlike his products, has no lofty ideas. Instead, he stands firm on the ground of facts like strong cable car supports and advocates for system openness and a sensible combination of various means of transport, especially in urban areas.

How is the business with cable cars developing in urban areas in general?

Fitz: Worldwide, it is getting better and better! It is growing rapidly, especially where affordable public mobility needs to be adapted to quickly growing populations.

In which regions and cities are these primarily used so far and why?

Fitz: Where there is very dense, informal development and the population is growing rapidly. This is also a reason why cable cars have recently been invested in primarily in the South and Central American regions. There are also now projects for Mexico City. What they all have in common is the positive side effect that many citizens from poorer strata and favelas suddenly had much better and more direct access to the city center or existing public transport services, which significantly improved their economic situation.

Still, it seems that progress is lagging in Africa, Asia, North America, and Europe. Or are there already interesting pilots here?

Fitz: There are: Take Portland, for example, where the hospital was also connected by cable car: Initially, there were massive protests because the cable car passed over private properties. Meanwhile, there has been a real shift towards multimodal mobility, individual motorized traffic has decreased, and property prices, among other things, in the cable car area have doubled. And many former critics recognize that the silent gondolas are more pleasant than roads with buses or trams.

The issue of overflying and thus violating privacy seems to always be a major problem?

Fitz: This is repeatedly brought up by critical groups. Here we can take Bregenz right on our doorstep as an example: From any elevated position, I have more or less good opportunities to observe lower-lying properties from above. And here too, the cable car runs directly over a very good neighborhood, where I can practically see into everyone's garden and pool. Still, it bothers no one, especially since the cable car is moving and this perspective is only maintained for a very short time. And most people by no means enjoy constantly looking into other people's gardens. Instead, they enjoy the floating transport.

I have similar impressions from Germany: In Koblenz, the cable car was supposed to be dismantled after the garden show, but the people of Koblenz protested against it. Here in Munich, it became a reality and most were disappointed that the residential area in Riem did not receive a cable car.

Fitz: Indeed, some countries are already more specific on the matter than Germany, but here too, the cable car is already considered in the Municipal Transport Promotion Act and can be used in local transport plans. But to prevent any false impressions: It's not about the principle of the cable car, nor about emotions, but about a clear need to improve mobility. And the initiative must always come from politics or the transport companies.

Where has this advanced further?

Fitz: In France, several projects have already been set up and there are currently three additional projects with the potential for more lines, including in the Greater Paris area. This also includes the Netherlands and Luxembourg. There, a 300-meter-long inclined cable car resulted in the target of a 25% share of public transport in 2020 being reached already in 2018!

This brings us to the next topic, the ecological footprint. Is it really that good? And are there already cost calculations of how much cheaper a cable car is in construction and operation compared to a bus or tram line?

Fitz: The important thing is always the specific need and the project approach derived from it. There are also clear rules here, for example, the life cycle assessment according to DIN EN ISO 14040 or 14044. The functional unit defined therein serves to assess the potential environmental impacts of different products over their entire life cycle, allowing them to be compared openly. Of course, there are always multiple truths, including cost truth or ecological truth, and I always have to separate between construction and operating costs. The fact is that a cable car costs only about a third of a tram and a tenth of a metro to build. And it can be relatively easily constructed in already developed areas to create new connections or optimize needs.

Can cable cars also be expanded into networks, and are there system limits? I heard something about a maximum length of 25 km?

Fitz: As I said, it's not about building a cable car or not, but about sensible and effective improvements in public transport. And for cable cars, this primarily includes tangential connections or retroactive connections of nodes or hubs that are not far apart. A cable car also works perfectly as a gap filler. For larger distances of five kilometers and upwards, there may be better systems with faster travel times. It is about leveraging the strengths of each system and then connecting them. And I don't have to reinvent everything for that. The priority in public transport is to get customers to their destination on time, safely, comfortably, and reliably, and at the lowest possible cost and CO2 emissions.

Here, the cable car apparently performs quite well. What about ongoing operations? What technical components need to be replaced when? And what costs are to be expected?

Fitz: The operating costs are very low in comparison. Depending on the length, route, and number of gondolas, the cost of spare parts is very low. For maintenance, individual gondolas can be taken out of service during operation, and the rest of the maintenance is carried out during off-peak hours at night. Only for major maintenance work does the entire system need to be planned out of operation, and even then for a maximum of one week. Generally, the system availability of the cable car in the air is much higher than that of ground-based systems, as it is not affected by normal traffic.

Can it keep up in terms of capacity?

Fitz: That depends on the size of the vehicle. A cable car can transport up to 6,000 people per hour and direction, depending on the design. Due to the continuous transport, there is much less stress when boarding and alighting; a vehicle leaves the station every 10 to 30 seconds. In terms of ground-based shuttle service, vehicles would need to transport 200 people every two minutes, which would be impossible on the road. But caution is also required here: High transport capacity is possible but not always fully sensible!

Cable car travel also has an emotional aspect – do you receive feedback on this?

Fitz: Of course, we do! It is inherently a more attractive form of travel: You glide silently through the air, seeing the surroundings from a different perspective. Once you experience the effect, it usually stays positively with you. Let's return to the example of Portland: In the beginning, there were huge protests, now up to 20,000 customers use the cable car daily.