From Martin Westerman, Joyce Hengesbach, Martin Pagel, et al., West Seattle / 206-427-9039

We ask for a new study of aerial cable transit (ACT) as an option for linking West Seattle with SoDo & International District light rail trunk lines.  We want Sound Transit to use the best mobility option for the purpose, and ACT is best for hilly topography.  But ST’s 2014 High-Capacity Transit Technologies Issue Paper rejected ACT, based unfortunately on many inaccuracies and omissions.  

These included:

Omissions and elements not considered:

• State law:  RCW 81.104.015 (2) and (4) define aerial as HCT if it is integral to a rail fixed guideway system.  So ST 2014 paper views ACT as the best circulator option
• Comparative cost:  $64M /mile for ACT, $500M-$600M /mile for light rail
• Seismic safety.  Rigid, closely-spaced light rail pylons supporting rigid guideway may be considered less seismically sound than widely-spaced aerial pylons supporting flexible cable
• Successful urban ACT systems in Singapore, Vietnam, Europe and South American cities, and proposed systems for Edmonton, Miami, Oakland, Los Angeles and San Diego
• Equity (social & business) impacts:  Aerial –
• requires fewer rights of way purchases and eminent domain takings,
• creates a smaller footprint than light rail, displaces fewer people, and leaves more space on the ground for housing, businesses and parks, and
• delivers faster “return to normal” with less construction time and disruptions,
• Safety record:  excellent worldwide.  If necessary, “rescue” of stalled gondolas can be handled with ground (fire dept.) or on-system (tow unit) resources
• More terrain appropriate.  
• Light rail is designd for level and moderate slopes, and requires elevated structures and tunnels in hilly and water areas; gondola is designed for hilly and water area geography.
•  

Inaccuracies:

• Passenger capacity:  the Paper lists “Low to Moderate” (2000 passengers per hour (pph)); RCW 81.104.015 says aerial systems are HCT (and deliver 5000-6000 pph)
• Operating speeds:  report lists 10-15 mph; actual speed can reach 20 mph
• Headway:  report states “as low as 40 seconds”; actual headways – as low as 30 seconds
• Implementation risk:  report states “high”; actual risk — moderate to low

•  “...gondolas/aerial trams ...are more appropriate for local travel over shorter distances”
• According to ST 2014 paper, ACT is best option to link W. Seattle with SoDo & I.D.
• ACT can extend up to eight miles, the distance from Fauntleroy to downtown, and from Golden Gardens and Northgate to downtown Seattle. 
• Suggested West Seattle system route would extend four miles
• Aerial “lacks regional applications,” and each application would require new supporting facilities and services.” 
• ACT is proposed as a link to light rail trunk lines, not as a regional system
• ACT requires a much smaller maintenance base and stations than light rail
• Metro buses need supporting facilities & services; electrics will need upgrades

The report was accurate around:

• infrastructure requirements — ACT does require ROW purchases and eminent domain takings, but far fewer, and needs much less support infrastructure than light rail
• system integration — transfers are required between all different mode stations 
• schedule reliability — excellent