this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2025
69 points (93.7% liked)

Canada

10329 readers
481 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


๐Ÿ’ต Finance, Shopping, Sales


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This would be an excellent idea! Itโ€™s not for all cases but this could be adopted where it makes sense ๐Ÿ‘

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Sure, it's been done. It has worked well in Medellin and now several Latin American cities are starting to get them. There's a proposal to do one in Burnaby, BC to go up Burnaby Mountain.

It seems like mountainous terrain is a requirement. Are you thinking about anything specific, or is this just a shower thought?

[โ€“] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Mountainous terrain isn't required, but it's the situation in which cable cars make the most sense because "better" options that require relatively flat ground aren't available.

Remember, the big selling point of a cable car is that it's cheap, but it's also lower-capacity than more usual kinds of transit. It's more legit than some gimmicky 'gadgetbahn', but not by much.

[โ€“] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

If a normal LRT is possible then it is the gadgetbahn.

[โ€“] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah I shouldn't say a requirement, but it's certainly more likely to be considered in elevated terrain.

[โ€“] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's a new CBC Radio article that OP may have forgotten to link to.

It does seem like there's not much of a use case if you don't have the requirement to cover a large change in elevation in a relatively short distance - mountains, or to get up and over a shipping lane, or something like that. The article argues for them to be inexpensive, which...I'm sure they are, but they seem to be relatively low-capacity, and pretty limited in terms of the number of stops you could include on a route. But I'm not an expert, and maybe I'd be surprised.

[โ€“] engene@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I did! Yeah that was the one ๐Ÿคจ

[โ€“] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

FYI when you post articles it is best practice to keep the same title

[โ€“] engene@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Noted! Damn newbs! ๐Ÿ˜

Not just mountainous terrain. Mexico City has one that goes over some densely packed naighborhoods. The roads are not good for buses, so the cable cars go over the town and connect to the BRT

[โ€“] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Also works well over bodies of water.

[โ€“] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

mountainous terrain is a requirement

Anything a train can't do, yeah.

[โ€“] engene@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah I read the same article and thought I included the link but silly me ๐Ÿ˜ I assumed a mountainous terrain was a requirement but appears to be doable here in the GTA too. I was surprised to learn a project is already underway in the Oshawa region.

[โ€“] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

You can edit your post and add a link, and articles should be link style posts, not image style posts.