We elaborate here from the "thematic synopsis of views" of the comprehensive CABLE-A TELEVAL public inquiry, based on the hypothesis of the same path, in order to provide relevant figures for a comparison.

The exercise is limited by the strong differences between two transportation modes, about opposite in their way to fit the urban area. Wherever the technologies would be implemented too differently we signal and explain why and how.

TELEVAL link (doc in French):

http://www.cable-a-televal.fr-download-bilan_de_la_concertation-CableA-Bilan-Concertation-VDEF-BasseDef.pdf

Paragraph numbering below matches that used in the inquiry report, to facilitate the reader's analysis and referring to the source document.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"CarLina for dummies"

   We travel the urban and suburban territory on-board machines. Deploying a technological choice is not neutral: it not only defines a performance but also, and by large, the surrounding infrastructures and the uses they induce.

   Cities have grown around the automotive for its life-supporting services, but along with nuisances vital to eliminate. CarLina is a public transport, very different in its goal and technologies. In the comparative analysis below, the reader should keep in mind its principles, leading to stunning differences with traditional solutions.

- the goal: making obsolete to use the automotive, individual or for delivery, in urban & suburban areas, with a more efficient, cheaper, nuisance free, sustainable solution, plus providing much more services. To this respect, CarLina has before all an environmental and urbanistic goal.

- the technology: while a CarLina network can cover quite a large territory, it remains a strongly coordinated entity: a fully distributed cellular automaton. It is made of a quantity of guided autonomous vehicles, each one traveling on a pre-computed optimal 4D route. A mission is statically computed and scheduled, then executes freely in an ever free, congestion-free environment of which any "event" has been removed.

Such an arrangement (statically scheduled cellular automaton) is known for extreme resilience, availability, efficiency and robustness, far superior to the existing centralized architectures in operation today. The network exhibits very high levels of redundancy, and can withstand damages far superior than what uses to block a rail network so often.

This can be compared to the automotive traffic which runs off independent cars - but without the very low efficiency and being coordinated, efficient, cheap, clean. Or tiny ants doing wonders together.

Link : page AIDA

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.1   'Opportunity of the project'

SEA has no divergence on the necessity to act using other solutions than that the ones used before, showing their limits in this territory suffering from an especially difficult mobility.

A more detailed analysis of CarLina (https://www.aida-sea.fr/transport-urbain) explains how the existing transports are limited in urban areas, but also how cable cars wouldn't be any different.

3.2   'An innovative mode'

3.3   'Opening up the territory'

3.4   'Insertion to the urban environnement '

3.5   'Line drawing"

3.6   Operation

3.7   Stations

3.8   Layout variants

Each solution has architectural limits (in flexibility and capacity, thus in cost) constraining a system deployment, as the CABLE-A inquiry clearly details. The more rigid a solution, the more establishing stations requires difficult and complex socio-economic arbitrations. In the CABLE-A TELEVAL case:

"Pointe du Lac"

Several possibilities hundred of meters apart, one selected: at the metro station.

"Temps durables et Emile Zola"

The location here builds consensus.

"Emile Combes"

System geometry clearly stepped over any significant local need.

"Bois Matar"

Problematic termination, too far from the RER, and remote from Villeneuve-Saint-Georges city centre (not enough room to settle the huge cable-car station in mid-town).

With CarLina, a comparatively "on ground" system, tiny and flexible, no such problems are identified. For example:

"Bois Matar" reaching the RER D station, even crossing the river, and providing a city-centre station don't seem difficult. In a CarLina drawing, Bois-Matar is one among a half-dozen within Villeneuve-Saint-Georges.

"Emile Combes" with CarLina, would be reached only of a traffic requirement basis, like the Emile Zola et Temps Durables stations are with the cable car.

"Pointe du Lac : CarLina doesn't concentrate difficultie on a single big station, but links several points of interest in small, stress-free points. Here the line or network would thrive through Créteil, in ramifications in the northern side of the marshalling station like it should be done in the southern.

Both solutions differ primarily on their granularity: a cable car with few, heavy stations whith a very limited territorial coverage, and CarLina bringing a very high capacity in a network very similar to the one buses use.  

3.9   'Cabins (pods)'

3.10   'Safety'

3.11   'Collecting traffic toward the new solution'

3.12   'Calendar'

No noticeable difference.

3.13   'Project cost'

Your opinions, comments - your questions

In a spirit of cooperation, your comments are precious to expand our knowledge on transportation needs worldwide, thus our development work to reach an optimal answer.

In case this matches your own business, your mission, we are delighted to read your advice.

NB. if ever your own territory was to experience transportation issues, we make a point of showing you and working hands-on with you the CarLina network design process, providing you with a quick, accurate view of the very efficient and cheap possible answer. 

The form below is yours. Attention : this site is not a blog, your privacy is total. We request you to leave your coordinates to answer you. You may ask us to broadcast your any contributions.