>>1759204Fair enough, that's actually a really cool system. But like you said, it would only make sense for buses, and buses can themselves cover pretty steep roads. Maybe not quite as steep as a funicular, but they don't need as much roundabout as a tram would, either. And modern trams are much too big to fit on a funicular. So we're pretty much back to square one.
Kinda related, aerial trams (ie gondola systems) have become somewhat popular for public transit in mountainous areas, especially if they're already built up. These are much cheaper than funiculars, and can be extended indefinitely with additional sections. Pic related.
In Switzerland where there's a lot of cable transport (albeit most of it for leisure use) there have been almost no funiculars or none at all built since the 1950s, because aerial trams are just so much cheaper, they don't need a full ROW, just a few supports and maybe cutting down the trees below somewhat.
