Off the Road and Into the Skies

New York City’s familiarity with Cable-Propelled Transit (CPT) is limited to the somewhat outdated (though soon-to-be refurbished) Roosevelt Island Tram, and the often-derided proposal by Santiago Calatrava for a gondola to Governors Island; projects plagued by financial, operational and publicity problems. As a result, many New Yorkers see CPT as unimpressive, inefficient or no more than a nostalgic novelty ride. But Steven Dale has made it his business to shed light on these misunderstood and under-appreciated systems that he says have the potential to dramatically impact how we move across our waterways — and even get to our airports. (Click here for a look at how Dale’s work is impacting Toronto’s transit planning.) Here, Dale looks back at New York City’s history with CPT and encourages us to think beyond the existing transit grid by offering bold new ideas for expanding this technology locally.V.S.

In 2007, famed architect/engineer Santiago Calatrava publicly proposed a Cable-Propelled Transit connection between Governors Island, Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan. It did not go over well.

For a designer as accomplished as Calatrava is, the packaging of the idea was shockingly amateurish. The renderings were poor, the concept was confusingly explained and because no one actually lived on Governors Island the entire idea was easily positioned by opponents as a trivial frill catering to tourists.

Some might have been tempted to describe Calatrava’s idea as “before its time,” but it was not. It was a half-baked idea and, predictably, reaction ranged from mild bemusement to outright hostility.

And yet, here’s the funny thing: the idea was not without substantial merit. However, given the Big Apple’s previous experience with Cable Propelled Transit (CPT) in the form of the Roosevelt Island Tram (RIT), no one could blame New Yorkers for their outrage.

Rendering by Santiago Calatrava of his proposed aerial gondola system, via <a href="">The New York Times</a>.
Rendering by Santiago Calatrava of his proposed aerial gondola system, via The New York Times.

Built in 1976 by the Von Roll company of Switzerland, the RIT was a temporary measure designed to connect Manhattan to the then-nascent community of 10,000 people on Roosevelt Island. It was a revolutionary concept for the time, more common to ski resorts than concrete jungles. A subway connection was supposed to replace the RIT but didn’t materialize until 1989 and by then, the Tram was a permanent fixture of New York’s skyline. It remains there to this day.

Built today, the Tram would cost around $25 million USD for roughly 1 kilometer. Compare that to the $125 million per kilometer price tag attached to the Vision42 Light Rail scheme for Midtown’s 42nd Street and you begin to understand why it was an attractive option for the economically-challenged NYC of the 1970’s.

Transit doesn’t have to exist purely in the roads we know and love. It can fill other arteries, causeways and environments.The problem was not the cost to build the RIT. Rather it was the cost to operate it. More specifically, the cost of insurance needed to operate it. The cost of insurance on the RIT rose dramatically year after year. From 1976 to 1986, premiums rose from $800,000 to $9 million, a staggering 1,025 percent. This despite having an excellent safety record. Insurance costs almost exclusively made the Tram a perpetual money loser. In 1986, the insurance company added further insult to injury when they refused to renew the policy, threatening the only existing transit connection to the island. New York State stepped in and adopted a “self-insurance” policy to address the situation.

Problems, however, persisted. On April 18th, 2006, 69 people were stranded above the East River for seven hours when the Tram lost power due to human (not technological) error. There were no injuries but, in combination with another power outage the previous September, authorities concluded that the system needed a major overhaul. It was closed for the better part of a year.

Ironically, after re-opening, the tram experienced ridership levels higher than before the closure. Higher ridership did not, however, make the RIT a money-maker. Unlike the subway that now travels to Roosevelt Island, the Tram is not fully integrated into the New York City transit system. Riders only recently have been given free transfer onto the Tram from the subway and bus system rather than paying an additional fare, the result of a deal struck between the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation and the MTA, brokered by the City Council, that allows RIOC to receive all fare revenue, first-swipe or transfer. (According to RIOC, the terms of this arrangement are currently under discussion, as the original deal is up for renewal. -Ed.)

It’s no wonder then that New Yorkers balked when they heard about Calatrava’s vision. It should be noted, however, that the technology envisioned by Calatrava could not be more different than the RIT. In the cable industry, the RIT is what is known as an “aerial tram.”  The technology features two large cabins shuttling back-and-forth between two terminals. Wait times between vehicles are long and the size of the cabins require costly infrastructure.  It is a high cost, low efficiency technology that is entirely antiquated. Current CPT systems are capable of much more.

For instance: Maximum capacity offered by the Tram is about 900 PPHPD (persons per hour per direction), whereas more advanced CPT systems today offer up to 6,000. Newer CPT systems allow for intermediary stations, dense urban alignments, corner-turning, full-integration with transit systems and less-than-one-minute (LT1M) wait times at a price cheaper than most aerial trams (not to mention light rail). It’s also the safest transit technology around save for elevators, which, if you think about it, operate in a very similar manner.

The Sentosa Island Gondola, photo by Flickr user <a href="">ericlbc</a>.
The Sentosa Island Gondola, photo by Flickr user ericlbc.

These systems, however, did not exist when the Tram was first built. Had the RIT been designed and built today, it would likely be a continuously-circulating gondola system with LT1M wait times. It would likely terminate in a tall building (such as on Sentosa Island, Singapore), thereby allowing users to transfer directly (via elevator) to a nearby subway station. That’s what was built in Medellin, Colombia in 2004 where the system has been a tremendous success and has spawned two other multi-station cable lines. Systems in Constantine, Algeria and Caracas, Venezuela have met with equal acclaim.

Portland, Oregon also got into the action a few years back but made the mistake of choosing an aerial tram. And yet, despite this oversight, the Portland Aerial Tram experiences ridership nearly double what was originally forecasted, a rarity in transit planning.

Calatrava’s Governors Island cable system most closely resembled those of Colombia and Algeria, but it was never packaged, presented and explained that way. He also imagined the system arcing upwards instead of downwards adding unnecessary complexity and cost to what is a very straightforward and simple technology. But since few people know anything about cable transit, confusion was almost a certainty and one has to forgive New Yorkers’ skepticism towards his proposal.

Technology concerns aside, Calatrava’s vision was also suspect because it attempted to solve a problem that no one had. Development of Governors Island was and is likely a decade away, making any current transit link premature. There is, however, a way to re-mix the Calatrava concept into a worthwhile addition to the Manhattan transportation network that solves a problem millions of people have each year:

What if we extended the link all the way to Newark Liberty International Airport?

A possible Brooklyn-Governors Island-Manhattan-Newark Liberty Airport route (in blue) as compared to the current commuter rail route (in red). Image by Steven Dale.
A possible Brooklyn-Governors Island-Manhattan-Newark Liberty Airport route (in blue) as compared to the current commuter rail route (in red). Image by Steven Dale.

The current experience of getting from Newark Liberty to Lower Manhattan is an infuriating and expensive odyssey of subways, transfers, commuter rails and people movers. Delays and missed transfers are constant. An urban gondola cable trip from Brooklyn to Newark would take around 45 minutes and would certainly be a more pleasant ride. Constructing and implementing such a link would be challenging, but it is technologically and economically feasible.

Or how about connecting Queens to the Bronx via Rikers Island? Or Harlem to LaGuardia via Randalls Island? A Staten Island connection across the Verrazano Narrows? They’re all doable. Once you wrap your mind around the implications of cable, you can quickly imagine the possibilities.

Cities need effective transit more than ever, but the state of government finances makes system expansion difficult. Cities are determined to get people out of their cars, yet traditional road-based technologies present serious difficulties. If we are to solve our cities’ transit problems, we need to think “off-grid.” Transit doesn’t have to exist purely in the roads we know and love. Transit can fill other arteries, causeways and environments. And due to the lack of “competition” in these arteries, transit can be built more sustainably from both an economic and ecological view. We need transit solutions that provide high levels of service but don’t burden future generations with exorbitant bills to repay.

We need transit that treats riders with respect and addresses their actual needs. Transit should not be the inconvenient hassle that it is now. Transit planners too often work under the assumption that our current regime is what transit is. Don’t like it? Tough. We need to take the time to think about what transit should be. Cheap, with LT1M wait times, high speeds, quick transfers, no schedules and – heaven forbid – an elegant, fun-to-ride system. These are all things that riders hope for and deserve. Cable can offer that.

Santiago Calatrava’s design may have been flawed, yes. But at least it was pointing in the right direction. We should recognize that and then re-interpret it, dream it and run with it.

Steven Dale is the founder of Creative Urban Projects (CUP Projects), a boutique planning shop in Toronto, Canada. He is an expert on Cable-Propelled Transit with several years experience researching and consulting on the matter. Steven recently launched The Gondola Project, an information campaign in support of CPT. For more information, visit or

The views expressed here are those of the authors only and do not reflect the position of The Architectural League of New York.


jhunt January 7, 2010

what about security concerns? one of the things that jumps out at me right off the bat is some nutcase killing everyone when you’re suspended 500 feet above the ground. it’s similar to a subway system but with nowhere to run. solve that though (with metal detectors or screening or whatever) and it sounds like a great idea; at the very least its a new way to think about transit.

Davsot January 8, 2010

You’re just being paranoid.

The same could happen on the RIT.

jhunt January 9, 2010

Then perhaps whatever security measures currently in place could be implemented on a new CPT system. It’s not paranoia, just a concern.

Joel January 11, 2010

I would take a gondola over an unneeded and expensive tram connection to the Oakland, CA International Airport and SF’s local BART Metro (currently connected by a bus).

jam January 14, 2010

I would absolutely love to see that Newark Liberty line built. It would certainly beat the PATH.

faslanyc January 17, 2010

One additional point is the way that being underground for significant amounts of time each day affects the psychological state of a community.

Compare riding the 7 train or one of the other elevated lines to being underground for an hour commute. It seems significant to me, though difficult to quantify and therefore make policy decisions based on that fact.

nice argument/article.

Eugen Schilter January 18, 2010

Another option for ‘highflyers’ is
Hop-on hop-off access still is to be on the surface where all the life is. For effective urban planning the issue of access rights to traffic surfaces is fundamental. Pedestrians and bicyclists have a first right. New Light Rail has eleven time the capacity of a lane of motor traffic (7,700 passengers/h against 700 per h) and thus, if allocated properly there is sufficient surface on this earth.
The strength of ‘Urban flying’ is that it can provide a solution without affecting the existing road set-up. Thus convenient where there is no political will to optimise.

Dave Brough October 27, 2010

“New Light Rail has eleven time the capacity of a lane of motor traffic (7,700 passengers/h against 700 per h)?”
For real? Applying light rail’s logic, my version of a lane of motor road traffic (using articulating bus w/100 pax and 2-second distance) is 100 x 30/min x 60 = 180,000 pph. And since a typical freeway has 4 lanes, x 4 = 720,000 pax/hr. Pretty good, eh?

gabe January 8, 2011

a few things:

No transportation system in New York City is profitable; all get subsidies. This is why we don’t have a larger network of water taxis.

As far as psychology goes, I totally agree but there are very few people who need to go to Governor’s Island, and the alternate transportation is not underground; it’s a boat.

The state took money from the MTA last year, seriously affecting the capital budget. I know no one likes the “money goes to other places” argument, but the budget gap is more than a billion dollars, and it has to be taken into account when approaching new infrastructure projects. For example, three city bridges have been rated “poor” by the DOT, and that doesn’t include those run by the MTA or Port Authority.

I know it seriously limits innovation, which is no good, but we’re still paying for the recession, and that is just how it’s going to be for awhile.

adam October 22, 2011

I think this idea would be awesome…..Brooklyn is so much closer to Newark than people think, and it would be an amazing connection from Brooklyn to Newark Airport

Steven November 18, 2016

Interesting idea, one concern I’m not sure the author considered is that an elevated cable car system would need to be relatively tall and would become an obstacle for aircraft arriving and departing from the airport. The Newark Airport Rail Link station sits directly under the approach to Runway 11, building the tram station closer to the terminals or in the old daily parking lots and going north around the airport would require crossing this approach. Ideally the station would be built somewhere on the west side of the airport where it could be accessed from the AirTrain system but this would mean crossing the approach to the airport’s primary runways either to the north or the south, this would require building out several miles before turning east to avoid the protected approach slope (50:1) although this is not undoable.

Crossing runway approaches could be avoided by building a station east of the airport, however, this would require a bus trip from the terminals to the station and space is tight between the airports primary runways and the NJ Turnpike. I think height restrictions would prevent building such a system on the east side of the airport and would instead have to be built somewhere east of the Turnpike. The two best roads for getting from the airport to areas east of the Turnpike are Port St and North Ave which are both already congested with tractor trailers going in and out of Port Newark.