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. © AET 2014 and contributors 2 • French regulations: 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. © AET 2014 and contributors 4 • Land area taken up by stations: 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.