What cities could have all of these public transportation systems?

[Expat]

From this list.

Is there any city that could physically provide a home for all of these public transportation systems? My assessment of that city's physical geography:

• Substantial inclines
• Generally hilly (or at least in places)
• Significant change in elevation within city limits
• Able to dig underground
• Possesses canals
• Exists on a significant body of water

Is there any way to reconcile the underground funicular with the elevated train? Can anyone come up with a reason why a city would sink one line underground, and elevate another on pylons?


I can think of cities that have a change in elevation, are hilly, and near water, but don't have canals. Maybe in southern San Francisco they could've dug canals instead of streets on the reclaimed land.
But then the underground funicular in SF seems like a terrible idea!

 

[Dilvish]

Washington, DC is a possibility. There are hills, and the remains of the C&O canal in Georgetown. Perhaps the Georgetown part of the swamp became a collection of waterways and islands?

 

[Trotsky]

New York City?

 

[TheMann]

Seattle and Los Angeles may qualify. Both of them have inland waterways and substantial elevation changes in parts of the city.

 

[mcdo]

Tokyo already has many elevated trains alongside an extensive underground rail network. It's one of the finest urban rail networks in the world, actually.
I don't think Tokyo is terribly hilly, but it does have canals and it is on a bay.
Here is the subway map:

And this is the rail map:

 

[Spelf]

New York City?

Doesn't have the elevation

 

[Beedok]

Hamilton Ontario only has like a one canal, but could have had a lot more I'm sure. St. Catharines Ontario has more canals, but it's part of the Niagara Escarpment is much less steep.

 

[Expat]

You could argue that New York has the elevation for the extensive cable car system (they already have a bit of this) and I think it would be fascinating to string more between skyscrapers- just for the effect it would have on the Spider-Man franchise alone. But it doesn't have the gradient elevation for extensive outdoor escalators or funiculars.

Likewise DC, though they don't even really have the height for cable cars either. Well, there's tentative discussion about a line from NoVa to Georgetown, so I guess they could. DC used to have even more canals, including one running right along the Mall where Constitution Avenue is now.

Does Tokyo have canals?

I know LA used to have a few canals (Venice really was built as a new Venice.) And I guess it has the elevation, right? I'm not too familiar with the city layout.

 

[Expat]

Oh, also, any thoughts on Rio? Capetown? I feel like Europe should be providing more options as well.

 

[Beedok]

Canals really aren't needed, they can be built anywhere so give it time and you can tosse them anywhere.

 

[aktarian]

Is there any way to reconcile the underground funicular with the elevated train? Can anyone come up with a reason why a city would sink one line underground, and elevate another on pylons?

You sink it where space is premium (i.e. centre) and put it above ground where you can to reduce cost and ease maintenance. Quite a few cities have above ground trains which then go underground near city centre.

Speaking of transports I think problem would be combining extensive riverine transports and lifts (funicular, cable....) where both are used extensively. You'd need hilly terrain combined with penty of canals/delta which I don't think exists. While both can happen one is usually more of attraction rather than "true" public transport.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Oslo perhaps? Small city yes, but on a coast, by a long, deep Sound, built into very hilly territory etc etc. Not sure about canals, but a Sound is pretty good right?

If Dunedin, Auckland or Wellington (New Zealand) were bigger or had more money, that could almost work (for similar reasons as Oslo), although we are light on canals too.

 

[Lord Malikai]

While Istanbul doesn't strictly speaking have canals, you could easily build some off the Golden Horn, or just count the Golden Horn itself towards the narrower end.

Besides that Istanbul already has a small cable car system, ferries, two underground funiculars and enough hills, crowded streets and waterways that you could certainly build the rest.

 

[Julius Vogel]

While Istanbul doesn't strictly speaking have canals, you could easily build some off the Golden Horn, or just count the Golden Horn itself towards the narrower end.

Besides that Istanbul already has a small cable car system, ferries, two underground funiculars and enough hills, crowded streets and waterways that you could certainly build the rest.

and most importantly, men who sell endless glasses of tea or orange juice on the ferries

 

[Beedok]

Is there any way to reconcile the underground funicular with the elevated train? Can anyone come up with a reason why a city would sink one line underground, and elevate another on pylons?

Vancouver's Skytrains go underground in the downtown.

 

[aktarian]

Oslo perhaps? Small city yes, but on a coast, by a long, deep Sound, built into very hilly territory etc etc. Not sure about canals, but a Sound is pretty good right?

If Dunedin, Auckland or Wellington (New Zealand) were bigger or had more money, that could almost work (for similar reasons as Oslo), although we are light on canals too.

The thing about single waterway is that boats on it don't have much advantage over land transport. Since you are travelling along single route using bus, train.... build along the water and as such following same path is faster, easier and less exposed to elements. If you are using riverine trnsport to connect city and suburb or another town along same coast at some point it will make more sense to just build a train line since that will allow easier transport of cargo as well.

So for extensive riverine public transport canals are a must.

 

[January First-of-May]

I thought the underground funicular was the one in Haifa

Substantial inclines
Generally hilly (or at least in places)
Significant change in elevation within city limits

All of these are basically different ways to say essentially the same thing, so shouldn't be their own points

Actually, Haifa itself might fit, but I don't think there's enough flat space for canals, unfortunately. (And I almost said the archeologists would cry foul, but the one underground-based transit system in the list is the one it has IOTL already.) Their part of the Coastal Rail Line definitely looks elevated though (I think one of the stations is on like the second floor of a mall - and I'm not kidding, I've been to that place).

 

[Julius Vogel]

The thing about single waterway is that boats on it don't have much advantage over land transport. Since you are travelling along single route using bus, train.... build along the water and as such following same path is faster, easier and less exposed to elements. If you are using riverine trnsport to connect city and suburb or another town along same coast at some point it will make more sense to just build a train line since that will allow easier transport of cargo as well.

So for extensive riverine public transport canals are a must.

If only St Petersburg had some hills then!

 

[SunDeep]

San Francisco seems like an obvious candidate, given its topography. And if you have a TL where Oakland and San Jose are incorporated into the city of Greater San Francisco, in a similar manner to Brooklyn and Long Island's incorporation into the city of Greater New York, you could still have the geology to dig the underground funicular within the city limits.

 

[Beedok]

If you had *Toronto grow in the Niagara Region rather than where it did, and more canals built you would definitely see some interesting transit results.