Why didn't US Midwestern cities invest in heavy rail in the early 1900s?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

Guess it depends on how you define legacy line. Portions of the line were used as an interurban in the 1920s, and the whole thing uses old intercity rail ROWs.

right, but old interurban/intercity rail ROWs tend not to have good interactions with the city neighborhoods they roll through (they want to get out of the city, not be a part of it), unlike legacy intra-city rapid transit ROWs (which are all about being of, by, and for the city), which is a big reason why cleveland's hodge-podge rapid transit line ranks near, or even at, the bottom of US heavy rail rapid transit systems in terms of ridership/mile.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

right, but old interurban/intercity rail ROWs tend not to have good interactions with the city neighborhoods they roll through (they want to get out of the city, not be a part of it), unlike legacy intra-city rapid transit ROWs (which are all about being of, by, and for the city), which is a big reason why cleveland's hodge-podge rapid transit line ranks near, or even at, the bottom of US heavy rail rapid transit systems in terms of ridership/mile.

Yes, true. What does legacy line mean to you, then? I thought a line that used an old corridor rather than creating a new, planned route for the express purposes of transit would be counted as a legacy line.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

Yes, true. What does legacy line mean to you, then?

to me, a legacy rapid transit line is one that was built from the outset to be urban rapid transit back in the early 20th century. philly's broad street line, chicago's brown line, just about anything in the NY subway system, etc.

i wouldn't put something cobbled together from old intercity passenger rail ROWs in the 50's/60s in that same category. but that's just my opinion.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

to me, a legacy rapid transit line is one that was built from the outset to be urban rapid transit back in the early 20th century. philly's broad street line, chicago's brown line, just about anything in the NY subway system, etc.

i wouldn't put something cobbled together from old intercity passenger rail ROWs in the 50's/60s in that same category. but that's just my opinion.

So just an old transit line? I thought 'legacy' implied the adaptation of old infrastructure/ROW for transit purposes. Semantics, I suppose.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

I thought 'legacy' implied the adaptation of old infrastructure/ROW for transit purposes.

not to me.

but yeah, we just have different interpretations of how the word should be used in this context.

no big deal....... moving on......

[jmecklenborg]

"Heavy Rail" implies but does not strictly define a rapid transit system. A rapid transit system is a closed system - complete grade separation and no shared track with another rail function (i.e. commuter rail). The Cleveland system is unusual in that the heavy rail rapid transit trains used to share tracks with typical PCC streetcars. Around 1990 the old streetcars were replaced with heavy rail vehicles in order to improve safety in the mixed trackage section. Unfortunately they look pretty ugly in Shaker Heights as compared to the old streetcars.

[badrunner]

Seems like a massive miscalculation for Cleveland to build a subway in the 50s and 60s. Probably banking on the postwar boom that never came (at least not to that part of the country).

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by PHL10

But weren't street cars just replaced by buses as opposed to abandoned?. In what ways did those old street car systems provide superior or even fundamentally different service than buses?

The only real advantage is that they're cheaper to run (after the initial capital investment in infrastructure). I don't lament the loss of streetcars. They are just glorified buses as you suggest. Today's articulated buses are higher capacity, faster, safer and more flexible. Soon they will all become electric as well, without the need for ugly overhead catenary wires.

[Jasoncw]

Originally Posted by badrunner

The only real advantage is that they're cheaper to run (after the initial capital investment in infrastructure). I don't lament the loss of streetcars. They are just glorified buses as you suggest. Today's articulated buses are higher capacity, faster, safer and more flexible. Soon they will all become electric as well, without the need for ugly overhead catenary wires.

110%

I've seen schedules for Detroit's old streetcars, and they're slower than today's bus system.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by badrunner

The only real advantage is that they're cheaper to run (after the initial capital investment in infrastructure). I don't lament the loss of streetcars. They are just glorified buses as you suggest. Today's articulated buses are higher capacity, faster, safer and more flexible. Soon they will all become electric as well, without the need for ugly overhead catenary wires.

I just got back from San Francisco and was wondering what the wires were for on their buses. They seemed gas powered but still had those wires.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

I just got back from San Francisco and was wondering what the wires were for on their buses. They seemed gas powered but still had those wires.

Those are electric trolleybuses that you saw.

They look like gas powered buses, but they're electric and grab their power from the overhead wires.

Only 5 US cities still use trolleybuses:

Seattle
SF
Boston
Philly
Dayton, OH

[jmecklenborg]

Overhead trolleybus wires are not "ugly". Dayton, OH has a very large network (about 10 lines) and there are only a few spots where the wires form a complicated web over and intersection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0esrzDS8fk

New overhead wires are much neater in appearance, i.e. the new streetcar systems.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Seems like a massive miscalculation for Cleveland to build a subway in the 50s and 60s. Probably banking on the postwar boom that never came (at least not to that part of the country).

not at all. the post war boom totally came to cleveland as it did all of america, thats why the subway plans. it was still peak era in the 1950s. downtowns were booming and there was no indication of the massive industrial decline that came later.

you will notice a gap in transit plans between then and the 1980s/90s dual hub subway plan. that would be the 60s and 70s, when the legacy heavy industry in cleveland was reeling.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

"Heavy Rail" implies but does not strictly define a rapid transit system. A rapid transit system is a closed system - complete grade separation and no shared track with another rail function (i.e. commuter rail). The Cleveland system is unusual in that the heavy rail rapid transit trains used to share tracks with typical PCC streetcars. Around 1990 the old streetcars were replaced with heavy rail vehicles in order to improve safety in the mixed trackage section. Unfortunately they look pretty ugly in Shaker Heights as compared to the old streetcars.

looks would be in the eye of the beholder and their experiences or lack of them with other rail transit systems.

new streetcars in other cities dont look like the trolleys of the old days either.

the cle rapid trains look like anybody else's subway or light rail trains of the same era, because that is what they are.










and the recent holiday trains were even clever and cute

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

not at all. the post war boom totally came to cleveland as it did all of america, thats why the subway plans. it was still peak era in the 1950s. downtowns were booming and there was no indication of the massive industrial decline that came later.

And, as has been mentioned already, Cleveland's red line was the very first urban rail transit connection in the US between a city's downtown and its airport. It was a very forward-thinking plan at the time it was completed in 1968.

And here we are over a half century later and only 4 other midwest/rust belt airports have followed suit:

Chicago - ORD (1984)
Chicago - MDW (1993)
St. Louis - STL (1994)
Minneapolis - MSP (2004)

And even around the nation, there is a surprisingly high number of cities that still don't have a direct one-seat rail transit ride from downtown to the airport.