Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 26 Aug, 12:22, Tom Anderson wrote:
Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the
complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean
without a
slope anywhere along;

The Roosevelt Island tramway might count:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway

It goes from Manhattan across the East River to Roosevelt Island.
Granted, the bit over the river is much higher than the two ground
stations, but the overall journey is essentially horizontal.

I was in New York with a friend a while ago, and one morning, after
having spent the previous evening making an extensive survey of local
beverage outlets, he told me he'd noticed a cable-car. I told him in no
uncertain terms that he was mistaken, and to exercise greater restraint
in his consumption in future. About an hour later, i was rather
surprised to walk past it myself. I never mentioned it to him, and
hopefully he still thinks it's imaginary.

So why the bloody buggering hell did they build it? According to
wikipedia, it was built at a time when there was no road bridge to
Manhattan, only Queens, the previous tram bridge had fallen into
disrepair, and the subway was still under construction. What i don't
really understand was why building a cable-car was thought to be a
better option than repairing the tram tracks, or converting them into a
road bridge. Or even a footbridge, given that it's not far, and the
cable-car doesn't exactly go far anyway.

Cross-posted to nyc.transit, who will doubtless have opinions.

My best guess is that a bridge would probably have been expensive,
especially if high enough not to block what was then (and still is to a
large extent) a critical navigable waterway.

As I understand it, the aerial tramway was supposed to be temporary, but
became so popular that it was kept even after the subway stop was finished.