The solution to traffic congestion isn’t up, up and away
By D. Dowd Muska | April 17, 2025
Urbanists often have their heads in the clouds. But this is ridiculous.
Today’s trendiest transportation topic in the world of “smart growth”? What the YouTube channel Climate and Transit calls “aerial lifts that run along cables between two or more stations.” The most common system is a gondola, like those found at ski resorts and adventure/amusement parks. In second place is the aerial tram, which usually traverses longer distances and has fewer – but higher-capacity – cabins.
Transit way up above experienced something of a boomlet in the 2010s, with proposals for Oakland, Seattle, Austin, Miami, Boston, Albany and Baton Rouge. But COVID-19 lockdowns helped quash the mounting momentum. Now, the buzz about gondolas and aerial trams is back.
Advocates tout the systems as convenient, affordable, green and “cool.” Eli Moore, of the Othering & Belonging Institute, claims that gondolas “provide transportation that is extremely frequent (a cabin leaves as often as every 12 seconds), fast (they don’t have to stop for any traffic signals or traffic), and reliable – three of the primary factors that researchers have found determine people’s choices to use transit over driving.”
Central to supporters’ narrative are alleged achievements one continent to the south. A recent Smithsonian article gushed that “since the first urban cable car transit system debuted in Medellín,” its counterparts “have been especially successful in Latin America, where massive cities and dramatic landscapes make building roads, rail lines and subway tunnels difficult.”
Unmentioned, of course, was a significant failure. Last May, a Reuters investigation probed a “global program meant to help the developing world grapple with the effects of climate change.” Guayaquil, Ecuador’s largest city – its population density is greater than San Francisco’s – erected a boondoggle:
France gave a $118.6 million non-concessional loan … in 2017 to build an aerial tramway. … Dubbed the Aerovia, the cabled gondolas were billed as a climate-friendly alternative to the congested bridges connecting industrial Guayaquil to a neighboring city where workers live. Four years after its inauguration, the Aerovia transported roughly 8,300 passengers a day. That was one-fifth of the ridership projected in early planning documents.
In America, a cable conveyance rising 500 feet across Interstate 5 was once hailed by a transportation commissioner as having “done everything it was supposed to do.” But according to the latest data, the Portland Aerial Tram, which began service in December 2006, has seen usage drop by half. In its peak year of 2017, the cable skyway notched a ridership of 2.2 million. In 2023, the passenger count plummeted to 1.1 million. Even in one of the nation’s most “progressive” cities, transit’s death spiral continues.
Portland’s system provides another red flag: cost. While enthusiasts fervently believe that aerial lifts are cheap relative to other transit options, the Rose City’s system does not inspire confidence. Initially, construction expenditures were pitched as somewhere between $3 million and $5 million. The final price tag was $57 million. As The Oregonian noted, “operation costs, too, exceeded original estimates, forcing the city to price tickets at a higher-than-expected $4 when it opened.” But the always-upward cost revisions didn’t induce cancellation, confirming California politician Willie Brown’s dictum:
In the world of civic projects, the first budget is really just a down payment. If people knew the real cost from the start, nothing would ever be approved. The idea is to get going. Start digging a hole and make it so big, there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in.
Sugar Land isn’t concerned about the “real cost” of its proposed Autonomous Elevated Cable & Rail System. The project won’t be “taxpayer supported” because the city, a Houston suburb with just over 100,000 residents, is “partnering with the private sector and will pursue state and federal funding,” according to the city website. (Apparently, both Austin and Washington, D.C., have access to magic money trees.) The company working with Sugar Land was “spun out of Google,” and features “a seasoned team with extensive experience delivering large-scale infrastructure and urban mobility projects.”
Swyft Cities is “the sole licensee of Whoosh Transportation Technology in North America and other designated geographies.” What’s Whoosh? Nothing less than a combination of “the best parts of ride-hailing services with elements of the urban gondola industry and the efficiency of autonomous EVs to create an entirely new elevated transportation mode.”
Sounds impressive. But even gee-whiz tech isn’t likely to suppress a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) backlash in Sugar Land. Neighborhood resistance is proving to be a major obstacle in Southern California. The Los Angeles Conservancy is “one of 29 local organizations” fighting “an aerial rapid transit gondola system connecting Union Station and Dodger Stadium – the Los Angeles Aerial Rapid Transit project (LA ART).” The powerful nonprofit charges the “purpose and need … is not fully demonstrated when environmentally superior alternatives are identified and available to be implemented,” “historic and cultural resources and view sheds will be significantly impacted,” and “it is foreseeable that additional government funds will be accessed despite claims to be 100% privately funded.”
Blasting LA ART as “a project that has not demonstrated a credible funding plan or provide[d] a guarantee that taxpayers won’t be on the hook,” Los Angeles City Council member Eunisses Hernandez secured $500,000 to hire a consultant to conduct a “Dodger Stadium Traffic Assessment,” according to published reports. Until the report is delivered, the city may not take “any action on approving advancements to the LA ART project.”
Piling on, in February, Courthouse News Service reported that opponents “asked the California Court of Appeals” to overturn the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s February 2024 approval of the gondola line.
Dubious claims of affordability. Questionable ridership estimates. And the inevitability of fierce local opposition. Turns out, the costs, appeal and “cool factor” of aerial cable transit aren’t quite what its fans advertise.
Editor’s Note: After publication, LA Metro contacted the Free Cities Center to point out that the “Metro Board of Directors approved the project with key conditions to include safeguards and guarantees to ensure the project’s development includes adequate community benefits. These conditions prioritize equity, historical context, community concerns and informed transportation planning decisions.”
Dowd Muska is a researcher and writer who studies public policy from the limited-government perspective. A veteran of several think tanks, he writes a column and publishes other content at No Dowd About It.
