^ i've read up a little bit on milwaukee's speedrail, and it also comes across to me more in the interurban/commuter rail vein vs. a true intra-city rapid transit system like the chicago el, boston T, or new york subway. it ran on a set schedule as opposed to continuous headways. the vast majority of stations were in the burbs as opposed to the city, with station spacing >2 miles as opposed to <1/2mile. if you lived within milwaukee proper, you likely never used it on a frequent basis, you rode the streetcars instead.
and i think that was ihearthed's point about st. louis being the only top 5 city in 1900 to never never expand beyond streetcars for rail transit within the city.
if st. louis had followed chicago, boston, and philly in building a proper elevated/subway rapid transit system back in the heady days of the late 19th/early 20th century, how might have that impacted st. louis over the course of the 20th century? would downtown have remained more "central"? would that have correlated with a lower degree of urban abandonment in core neighborhoods? would the city of st. louis today be closer to 70% of its 1950 population instead of 35%?
it's impossible to definitively answer any of those questions because there are so many other variables that would have also been in play, but it's interesting stuff to ponder none-the-less.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Last edited by Steely Dan; Nov 11, 2019 at 11:00 PM.
|