Emergence of Aerial Cable Transport in Urban Areas in France

ANALYSIS OF THE REASONS FOR THE (NON-)EMERGENCE OF AERIAL CABLE TRANSPORT IN URBAN AREAS IN FRANCE

Sandrine Rousic Cerema - Direction Technique Méditerannée Cécile Clément-Werny Cerema - Direction Technique Territoires et Ville

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The French context: a delay in the development of aerial cable transport systems We are currently witnessing a change in mobility with public transport playing an important role in France where private car travel has traditionally been very dominant.

In 2009, the French government enshrined aerial cable transport for urban areas in law as being beneficial and declared it as a method to be developed in French towns. In 2014, France has no urban facilities of this kind. This is not the case in many other countries in Europe nor elsewhere in the world. This discrepancy in France is mainly due to lack of knowledge about urban integration and operation in urban areas and to the fact that aerial cable transport remains confined to the mountains and to leisure activities in general.

Illustration1: Urban facilities throughout the world (non-exhaustive list) - source GART

© AET 2014 and contributors 1 In 2013, a review of projects in France showed a certain amount of enthusiasm for this transport system. Local authorities and the press communicate on ideas for cable transport in mainland France, Polynesia, and the islands of Reunion and Mayotte.

Cerema worked for two years to see whether this mode of transport is appropriate for urban areas. After publishing a first report on the relevance of aerial cable transport in urban areas in 2012, Cerema is now analysing the potential of aerial cable systems as a means of public transport for passengers in towns.

New studies have been launched, including the analysis of obstacles to the development of cable transport in France in 2013. This study aims to help local authorities understand how to implement such a system, with knowledge of the issues and impacts, and action to be taken for better acceptance of these systems.

1.2. The methodology used The study analysed the barriers associated with developing cable transport systems in France today. Different types of barriers exist: regulatory, technical, social, psychological, etc. in France because the absence of this transport mode in urban areas has led to a mismatch between regulations and the actual conditions of implementation and operation.

The analysis was performed on the basis of the literature, the media and conferences, and a series of interviews with local authorities in Brest, Toulouse, La Réunion, Grenoble, Val de Marne and the STRMTG, the technical department in charge of ski lifts and guided transport, responsible at State level for regulations on ski lift facilities.

The article presents an updated overview of the technical and social barriers. It identifies gaps in the literature that could hinder aerial cable transport, and specifically explains the current impacts and responses implemented by the different people involved.

2. THE MAIN TECHNICAL OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPMENT OF AERIAL CABLE TRANSPORT

Implementation of aerial cable transport as urban public transport is fraught with technical issues of three kinds: the system and how it is set up, impacts of the system and its use in urban areas.

2.1. Implementation in an urban environment The context for this type of transport was historically set by the French State in technical regulations for ski lifts, reinforced by a European framework, and based on feedback from systems in use, mainly in the mountains.

Many technical considerations are defined by regulations (height, what the cables are allowed to pass over, speed, fire, etc.) and are relatively well defined in the by-laws. These regulations are not necessarily appropriate for cable transport in urban areas because the difficulties involved in installing them there may be more complex and the urban planning code outside mountain areas is more restrictive. What does this mean, exactly?

Concerning technology: the fact that the system is installed in urban areas does not affect the current rules on overall constraints on design as such (to be respected by pylons, cables, safety factors, cable diameter, pylon size, etc.)

Illustration2: Source: report “Transport par câble en milieu urbain - Cable transport in urban areas” – Editions CERTU 2012

Concerning passing over densely populated areas, the current regulations are restrictive for aerial cable transport. From a technical point of view, the only law that refers to this in the urban planning code, outside mountainous areas, is the law of 1941. It allows the cable to pass over private land at a height of over 50 meters and in all other cases requires all private plots that it goes over to be expropriated, including under the line. Cable professionals (the State, builders and local authorities) are aware that the 1941 law does not answer the current problem of installing an aerial cable system in towns. As of 2013, a study backed by the French Ministry was launched to repeal the 1941 law and propose legislative changes. This draft law is being repealed and will admit rights over land. This future legislation will, by law, authorise cable transport to pass over land, allow work to be done on it for maintenance and evacuation purposes, install supporting structures and prohibit, as appropriate, any future building or impose height limits for vegetation on the land that the cable passes over.

© AET 2014 and contributors 3 Illustration3: Source: report “Transport par câble en milieu urbain - Cable transport in urban areas” – Editions CERTU 2012 Concerning the heights at which cables are allowed to pass, regulations set heights related to fire risk, the specific nature of the environment passed over, the inconvenience caused, and passing over moving obstacles. Not all types of environment that the system runs over are listed in the regulations as they had not been presented until now. If a project shows that current provisions are not relevant, the rules will change, with a demonstration of compensatory measures to ensure the same level of safety.

Lack of expertise and resource services, and the need to update references and regulatory guides are a recurrent barrier. Given the innovative aspect of the system and the still precarious technical rules for the urban environment, local authorities require strong support from government services to help them implement their projects and examine the regulatory aspects to be changed.

• Integration into the urban environment

Urban integration carries with it many limiting preconceptions that devalue the technology, such as the technical constraints of straight lines and the length of the aerial cable transport.

The perceived constraint about the straight line does appear restrictive for urban integration, service to passengers and connection to an existing public transport network. However, deviation is feasible by bringing about a change in direction in the form of a technical station or station serving passengers. These intermediate stations take up more land due to the angle, as shown by experiments in service.

From a technical point of view, there is no limit to the length of an aerial cable, some systems in service being even several tens of kilometres long. The number of stations and the length between stations determine the journey times. It is difficult to put forward absolute limits above which journey times are no longer advantageous in comparison with a competitive mode such as buses or cars. The characteristics of the system depend on the level of service expected by the local authority.

Even though gaining land is a stated advantage of cable transport, the land required to build stations in a dense urban fabric is a recurrent obstacle that is cited as one of the technical barriers standing in the way of developing this mode.

Technology plays an important role in the design of stations. The dimensions of the stations vary depending on several factors: mechanical limits (desired speed in the station), expected volumes of passengers, car maintenance and storage and rights over land. The stations are quite impressively sized, with the cars usually arriving at the top, which requires multi-storey buildings to meet the stringent technical standards.

Illustration4: Source: report “Transport par câble en milieu urbain - Cable transport in urban areas” – Editions CERTU 2012 Feedback from experience show that the land requirements (shape and size) are often dictated by architectural considerations arising from urban integration rather than from the operation of the system itself. The question of stations also raises issues about the economics of the system in an urban environment subject to a lot of pressure as to land use. The space required should be thought out in terms of sharing the building (for shops, or services, for example) and therefore in collaboration with other partners. Stations have a direct impact on the overall investment cost of the project.

• Comfort and accessibility:

The goal for local authorities is to offer their users the same level of service and comfort as that provided by other modes in the urban transport network. But the lack of comfort and accessibility problems for people with disabilities are often put forward as an obstacle to the development of aerial cable transport.

Standards of comfort in cars have improved dramatically with the desire to have passengers travel seated, limit the size of the on-board engine and make the cars modular. Today manufacturers have succeeded in equipping their cars with small batteries to optimize weight, solar panels, lighting, audio or video systems to contact the nearest station, ventilation to avoid the need

© AET 2014 and contributors 5 for air-conditioning, luggage / bicycle storage, supports for passengers to lean against, call buttons, etc. They can also be equipped with systems to make the car windows opaque so as to limit visual intrusion.

With respect to accessibility for people with reduced mobility, there are many misconceptions. To preserve people's autonomy, access to stations and cars are on one level, the interior of the car should allow a wheelchair or a pushchair to turn round and the car must, if possible, be completely stopped at the station.

Illustration5: Source: report “Transport par câble en milieu urbain - Cable transport in urban areas” – Editions CERTU 2012 Technically, systems have been approved in France and it is not essential to have the car completely stopped at a station depending on the width of the doors and the capacity of the car. However, in urban areas, the principle of precaution is in favour of having the car stop in the station . Stations with several storeys presents no particular difficulties, as the design ensures accessibility with elevators, escalators and ramps, as proposed on the Montjuic cable car in Barcelona.

• Construction phase and reversibility:

Preconceived ideas about "rapid construction stage" and "easy reversibility" for a cable transport system derive from installations abroad or in mountain environments. These prejudices are harmful to local authority urban projects.

Existing regulations in urban areas impose great restrictions and incompressible completion times for cable transport, even if there are no networks to be diverted or roads recovered. Concerning the technical aspects, the construction phase mainly impacts areas where there are stations and pylons, which reduces the impact in terms of disturbance to residents and site management as compared with road works. The possible reversibility announced by manufacturers is due to the fact that the installation has little impact on the environment through which it runs and can be removed easily. But this is not recommended in urban areas as regulatory issues impose severe integration constraints and it is important to ensure that the system is attractive and consistent with the urban network.

Initially, manufacturers produce facilities for mountainous areas and tend to offer standard products. For their part, local authorities are not used to discussing technologically unfamiliar facilities with these manufacturers. Is this unusual relationship an obstacle to the development of aerial cable transport in towns?

Work on urban projects is more complex for manufacturers than on projects in the mountains where it is often cheaper and simpler to install such a facility. Manufacturers are not yet used to the degree of anticipation required for urban transport projects and the need to work with various local stakeholders. In the mountain, users have purchased a service but have time: they are mainly sports people and there are rarely people with reduced mobility. The target clientele in urban areas is different from that of mountain systems in terms of its habits, its composition and its requirements. An urban cable car is not designed in the same way, and the relationship between local authorities and manufacturers is very important.

The standard production strategy as practised in the mountains cannot be adapted to the specific demands of local authorities. For example, builders are struggling to get away from the conventional shape of the cars. Manufacturers and their subcontractors will have to meet the particular demands of design and the specific features of local authorities. There is an awareness among manufacturers developing alliances with the relevant urban stakeholders that they need to invest in an architectural approach to urban stations and pylons. The authorities demand this design complexity specific to the installation and standard, functional equipment to reduce costs and facilitate maintenance.

2.2. The impacts of aerial cable transport As with any public transport project, impacts and compensatory measures need to be examined and taken into account. Through ignorance and lack of experience feedback, impacts on the landscape, and acoustic and environmental impacts are often announced as standing in the way of the development of cable transport in urban areas.

• Acoustic impact:

Setting up a cable transport system raises concerns about the noise that the system might cause. Technical measures to reduce noise exist but the impact remains and the specific density of urban areas may increase the amount of nuisance caused. From a technical standpoint, the acoustic impact is potentially troublesome as the cars enter and leave stations and as they pass over pylons, as well as in stations because of the motors and ventilation systems.

© AET 2014 and contributors 7 Currently, some acoustic measurements have been performed but are specific to certain equipment and environments. Local authorities would like to have product sheets per type of infrastructure, based on the proximity and height of the pylons.

Impact studies need to be carried out using these technical data. A 3- dimensional noise projection along the line of travel would provide an objective technical demonstration of the potential discomfort.

• Landscape and environmental impact

The notion of disfiguring the landscape and impacting the environment is put forward as an obstacle by opponents. Both aerial and ground-based components of the facilities directly impact the landscape and the horizon, unlike other public transport whose infrastructure is integrated or almost non- existent.

These impacts are difficult to understand for local authorities due to the lack of experiments.

The landscape impact is examined in the same way as for any urban public transport system. Integration into the landscape, proximity to historic buildings, and going through natural, protected areas need to be examined with partners such as Bâtiments de France architects and environmentalists. Including these partners as early as possible in the discussion helps to identify problem areas and find solutions and compensatory measures (plantations, discrete facilities, greenways, etc.).

Illustration6: Source: report “Transport par câble en milieu urbain - Cable transport in urban areas” – Editions CERTU 2012 The architectural impact involves work on the appearance and the form of infrastructure, taking into account safety and design rules. Having architects and designers work on the design of stations, cars and pylons dramatically increases the cost of the facility, but urban integration requires an overall architectural approach.

Although urban areas are less environmentally fragile than mountain areas, future projects pass through the natural environment and may impact the flora and fauna. There is currently not enough quantified feedback from

© AET 2014 and contributors 8 experiments to properly characterize the effectiveness of the solutions implemented and to find the best measures to limit the impact on the environment. While awaiting the initial feedback, discussions must be held with environmental associations.

To limit opposition and encourage the acceptability of this type of infrastructure, cooperation with the public is paramount. The local authority may choose to consult on the design of pylons, and cars, and on the architectural design of the stations, etc. It appears necessary to invest financial resources on this component if it is desired to minimize the landscape impact in town.

• Social and economic impact:

The economic dimension involves two major issues: the question of price- effectiveness and the impact on the neighbourhood and on housing. It is often reported that "aerial cable transport is cheaper than a tram". Is this true?

The investment costs for aerial cable transport cannot be roughly compared with those of a road transport mode such as trams or buses. The systems do not provide the same services: aerial cable transport can cut through urban landscapes in a way that is impossible for other modes of transport. Logically, in some cases, the cable should be compared to a civil engineering structure.

Illustration7: Source: report “Transport par câble en milieu urbain - Cable transport in urban areas” – Editions CERTU 2012

In addition, there are not enough data on the actual costs of urban facilities with consideration of costs related to station architecture and the design of pylons and cars to make a proper socio-economic evaluation.

During a recession, the economic issue is constantly present in the debates, as is that of large-scale funding by taxpayers. To convince them of the usefulness of such a project, support and consultation are essential.

© AET 2014 and contributors 9 Transport infrastructure has an impact on the economic aspect of a neighbourhood and a town, as factors that amplify trends. Cable transport helps to open up areas because of its adaptability, it allows a district or an area to develop and open up. Some fear the negative and depreciating impact of aerial cable transport on the value of real estate. The effects of this are neither known nor controlled at present.

2.3. Operation in an urban environment Running the facility for daily mobility is currently an innovative approach. Many questions remain to be answered concerning the running and maintenance of systems with regard to the regulations in force. The lack of experiments in France means that acceptable and regulatory modes of operation in the urban environment cannot be validated or concerns of local authorities and urban stakeholders allayed.

• Level of service:

Aerial transport, when integrated into an urban transport network, will provide the same level of service as other modes as far as comfort, waiting areas, operating speed, accessibility, ticketing and availability are concerned. This implies operation with an extended service span throughout the year as compared to ski lifts in the mountains.

Illustration8: Source: report “Transport par câble en milieu urbain - Cable transport in urban areas” – Editions CERTU 2012

Correspondence with other modes is a necessary component for successful integration of cable transport in the urban transport network. One concern is the waiting time to access the cable car at busy times due to an influx of people arriving by another mode of transport.

• Availability:

Bad weather (wind, thunderstorms, storms and hurricanes ) is often stated as influential on the availability of aerial cable transport.

© AET 2014 and contributors 10 The subject of wind is well known and is dealt with depending on how sensitive to wind the system is and the availability that the system is required to have. Experience feedback demonstrates very good availability for urban cable transport systems. They are even quicker to restart after a hurricane than the other modes.

Storms are more of a psychological than a technical obstacle. It is not necessary to stop the cable car. Other risks related to bad weather, such as frost, flooding landslides, earthquakes, etc. are not specific to aerial cable transport and are no more detrimental than those affecting other transport systems.

• Maintenance regulations and periodic checks:

Running and maintaining cable transport systems are governed by the decree of August 7, 2009, which sets out the technical requirements throughout the life cycle of the facility. Technical regulations require periodic inspections that are perceived as demanding on local authorities and urban operators.

These maintenance and inspections rules were drawn up in consultation with the various stakeholders on the basis of experience feedback from mountain areas with seasonal frequencies. These rules take into account the fact that the system is shut down for several months in the year, which facilitates maintenance during off-peak times. In an urban environment, where the system is required to operate 360 days a year in cycles of 20h per day, equipment maintenance and repair requirements are more restrictive. The desired quality of service in an urban environment does not allow the system to be stopped during the day for repair.

No relaxation of the regulations is planned, as installations in urban environments work more intensively than in the mountains. Inspections will still be needed in towns, as evidenced by experience feedback from abroad, and they will be just as frequent. Redundancy of equipment for continuous maintenance is one possibility that would lead to a relaxing of inspections. The equipment should be as standardized as possible. Standardization with spare parts purchased in advance simplifies background maintenance operations while the system is still running. New means of performing inspections are being considered for the current way of working needs to be adapted to the urban environment as far as opening times are concerned. One can imagine adjustments such as reducing the number of days of annual inspection to avoid too long an outage of the facility.

Note: systems in operation abroad, in the absence of a legal framework, are often based on French law. French and European expertise reassures authorities abroad and also highlights the importance of French manufacturers as major players in these foreign projects.

The operating personnel of an aerial cable transport system as used on mountain systems seems prohibitive for local authorities as labour agreements in urban environments are different from those of seasonal staff, with a ratio of 1 to 3. Without any experience feedback, it is difficult to estimate the real needs in terms of staff in the cars and in stations, and the actual operating costs incurred. Several technical and regulatory issues are being analysed by local authorities to keep operating personnel down to a minimum.

One possibility is to have an automatically operated system, with automatic landing doors and having the cars stop in the stations. Surveillance by a member of the operating staff as required, especially during peak hours, is still recommended.

For the safety of the system, the number of passengers in the car is checked to avoid overloading. The system is designed to carry a maximum weight in the car with the appropriate safety coefficient. A turnstile system is sufficient to count the number of people entering the cars.

Regulations require an on-board member of staff for cars with a capacity greater than 40 people. This operating requirement has a strong impact on the number of operating staff. Local authorities want this requirement to be relaxed for automatic systems. At the request of local authorities, the rule for the maximum capacity of cars without any on-board staff is under review.

Operating and maintenance costs are considered by local authorities as a fundamental point of vigilance. Work on equipment redundancy and special maintenance (night work, continuously or shutting down the system) are analysed with regard to the closing time / costs ratio.

• Evacuating passengers in the event of an incident:

The fact that this is an aerial transport system makes evacuation more complicated and requires more sophisticated extraction means than for road transport modes. Urban clients being different from those in ski areas, they would probably not appreciate finding themselves locked in a car for several hours, having to abseil down or being winched off by helicopter. On-line evacuation of passengers is an obstacle standing in the way of daily operation.

Local authorities emphasize that is important for users to be able to remain passive during evacuation. Returning cars to the station is recommended, as this is a comfort criterion and an essential consideration for acceptability by urban customers.

It turns out that at present integrated rescue technology is limited to a few specific systems and it is not possible on single cable or dual cable systems.

© AET 2014 and contributors 12 If it is not possible to bring the cars back to the station, other evacuation measures should be proposed. Manufacturers must demonstrate that their different systems are able to evacuate passengers passively. Technological constraints are included in the operating constraints related to the emergency services that have to be set up.

• Energy consumption:

Energy consumption and the supply of electrical power do not seem to be identified obstacles. But it is difficult to provide a sufficiently objective analysis on the subject because of lack of detailed information on energy consumption and the complete life cycle (from construction to operation) of a facility.

It is not yet possible to identify the exact consumption of each system. However, everyone agrees that aerial cable transport is more advantageous in comparing systems in proportion to the number of passengers transported on a daily basis.

The value of aerial cable transport in that it uses electrical power as compared with modes that use fossil fuels seems proven, at least with regard to local pollution.

3. SOCIAL OBSTACLES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF AERIAL CABLE TRANSPORT

Even if technical studies concluded that cable transport was the right solution, what stands in the way of developing this type of project? Can an atypical mode of transport around which so many preconceived ideas gravitate be socially acceptable?

• This is a wrong perception of a still little known and unrecognised mode:

The collective unconscious tends to favour the irrational with the apprehension of an unknown mode and anxiety related to fear of heights, of the car and cable falling, of bad weather and the facility's lack of safety. Among the various concerns about aerial cable transport, mention may also be made of the unusual situation of being suspended above the ground from a cable, claustrophobia, promiscuity related to feelings of insecurity in the cabin, incivility with damage done to the cars (anti-graffiti devices) and thrown objects (break-proof glass ). It should be noted that these excesses of society can be observed whatever the mode of transport.

At all levels (population, councillors and technicians), these irrational factors seem to tilt the balance towards apprehension of the mode in spite of the assurances of reliability explained by cable professionals . Some technicians and councillors also display signs of innophobia, or an irrational fear of innovation.

© AET 2014 and contributors 13 Fear is often cited as an obstacle when discussing this mode of transport. Some educational work needs to be done to reassure the population and demonstrate the efficiency and safety of the system. For example, users must be given answers to the questions of incivility associated with promiscuity and confined spaces. The public should also be informed about integration of the system into the landscape, its safety, its risks, and evacuation procedures highlighting the passive nature of passengers.

• Rejection of the aerial mode:

Visual intrusion and running above private land are the main obstacles brought up by the population when presented with an urban cable transport project. Local authorities are aware of these two obstacles and try to choose a route that goes over as few private plots and buildings as possible.

Visual intrusion is the primary cause of local residents rejecting a project. Through lack of knowledge, a cable car running above a home gives more cause for concern than a great many buses or trams passing by. There is very little than can be done to counter this social obstacle and it must be prevented as much as possible. To reassure local residents, the range of possibilities is wide: route selection, landscaping, choice of equipment and system solutions such as limited viewing angles and opaque windows, taking the route into account in urban planning when siting new districts so as to prevent passengers from seeing into houses, and providing compensation.

The sometimes exaggerated misrepresentation of the visual impact is ultimately very detrimental to the promotion of this mode of transport. Projection of the visual impact using synthetic imagery appears useful in getting residents, professionals and councillors to subscribe to the project.

In general, aerial systems are poorly perceived through ignorance and lack of expertise related to the fact that there are few such systems in service in France. We need to communicate and convince people of the technical realities.

Here are some ideas for getting local people to subscribe to the project: - Identify and associate all public stakeholders affected and / or that the projected route passes above as soon as possible - Consult the people as to the choice of design of stations, pylons, cars, etc. - Work on the main social obstacle - visual intrusion - by the choice of route, the arrangement around stations, planting, the choice of equipment and cars (to cut out the viewing angle) and system solutions. - Have detailed opportunity studies available, consult upstream and get people to join the project, - Provide clear technical data (e.g. for the acoustic impact, present the actual noise levels in the urban area), - Have the aerial cable project included in the urban planning documents, to make it exist and get people talking about it.

Aerial cable transport in France is associated with ski areas and transporting sports tourists. People would find using it in an urban setting implausible. In recent years there has been a positive change in the image of aerial cable transport but it is limited to the initiated.

In the collective consciousness, cable transport is associated with a dedicated system for mountains and ski resorts. It is often perceived as an inefficient system associated with the image of a ride at the funfair. In France, the cultural difference tends to work against aerial cable transport in an urban setting.

In recent years, its image as a "gadget " has changed, despite its detractors, towards a more positive image. In France, the novelty aspect of this mode is awakening the interest of the general public and local authorities in charge of a project are often called upon by the press. Gradually, the image of urban transport is beginning to take shape through exposure given by the national media and facilities abroad (in New York and London, for example), in some cases mixing urban public transport and tourist transport. This positive media coverage gives a dynamic and modern image of aerial cable transport. One must remain cautious and be careful not to turn it into a fad! For some councillors, the "trendy" and marketing aspects of the project appeal, which is not necessarily beneficial for cable transport.

The mainstream press effect may, conversely, be detrimental to the image with a quick move away from acclaim and towards the opposition. There are not enough images adapted to the urban setting in France to prevent misrepresentations (such as using equipment specifically designed for mountains in town, or passing over highly urbanized areas by some systems from abroad) which discredit the image of urban cable transport as one would like to see it in France.

Some preconceptions still discredit aerial cable transport in France, such as the tourist image with its lack of consideration for the mode as opposed to the current supremacy of rail transport in France, and posters displaying "attraction-style" cable car projects. These projects have different issues at stake (with a range of services not suitable for providing an urban public transport service).

The role of the press is crucial in defining the image that circulates. Care simply needs to be taken with communication and messages sent out to the people. People's perception of aerial cable transport has been formed over many years. Instead of trying to change the image, it must be demonstrated that aerial cable is a transport mode just like the others. The first systems in urban areas in France will make it possible to do just that.

Aerial cable transport for urban public transport purposes is emerging in French towns. Currently, Beauvais, Boulogne-sur-Mer and Orléans are examining 400m links but the emblematic projects are those in Brest, Val-de- Marne, Toulouse, Saint-Denis de la Réunion. Below are some of the characteristics of these projects. The figures are taken from communication documents and it is not the final figures.

Table 1: Brest (Brittany)

Linking towns in Val de Marne in the Paris suburbs: Créteil, Limeil- Brévannes, Valenton, Villeneuve-Saint- Georges Distance : 4.5 km 5 stations Connects with Metro 8 Likely equipment: Single-cable gondola Sixty 10-15 place cars Ridership: Target of 10 to 12 000 people per day (in 2020) Theoretical speed: 5 m/s Journey time: 5 to 16 min Probable cost: €72 million Opens: 2018 Runs above major divisions (motorways, marshalling yard and rail lines) Stations and pylons planned to be integrated into the landscape 80% of public land. Does not run above private buildings.

Table 4: Saint Denis de la Réunion

Connecting the La Montagne plateau to the Saint-Denis town centre at the hospital or the town hall Distance : 3-4 km with 400m of ascent 4 stations Likely equipment: Single-cable or three-cable gondola Ridership: 2500 to 3500 people/day 35-place cars Theoretical speed: 7m/sec Journey time: 10 min Cost: €20-30 million (depending on the system) Planned to open: 2017

The 2 variants run above natural areas and buildings / public and private facilities. Environmental impact with a bird migration corridor on the site.

Is there a future for urban cable transport in France?

From New York to Constantine, from Medellin to Paris, urban cable cars are booming. They can cross rivers and hills, and bring people in isolated areas closer together. The list of towns subscribing to this mode of transport will grow in the coming years because travelling through the sky avoids obstacles on the ground and makes certain urban areas accessible.

The technical and social obstacles standing in the way of developing this transport mode in an urban setting have been presented in this article. They show the constraints present in France today that explain why it is lagging behind other countries. Technical regulations, particularly regarding areas that the cable system can run over, and urban integration rules greatly restrict the development opportunities for cable transport. Regulations will change in the coming years to meet the needs of setting up such transport systems in towns.

The lack of facilities in service in the urban environment does nothing to help to identify impacts and operating methods for aerial cable transport included in a global urban public transport network. Aerial transport is by nature different from other modes of transport and is still at the experimental stage in towns, which makes it difficult to understand fully.

Dialogue with all professionals and associations, local residents and more generally the population is a key to progress on these issues. Putting this innovative transport system into service in France will help to assess the facilities and compensatory measures in place and bring about changes to the means implemented to limit the impacts caused by it.

In terms of its advantages for crossing obstacles and changing altitude, cable transport has a place in the urban environment if it turns out to be opportune as compared to another mode of transport. It can be part of an of urban transport network and can provide equivalent comfort and service quality. It seems to be a pertinent choice for some services but in order to be attractive it will be limited to certain configurations.

The French have a history of cable transport which carries with it an image of a mode limited to ski areas. This does not work in favour of the development of this mode. The atypical nature of this type of innovative transport mode still divides opinion regarding the usefulness of such a system in towns in France. Recognition by French people has not yet to been obtained. But there is no doubt that towns are enthusiastic about this mode of transport.