I was mulling over the era of electrically powered, inexpensively built inter-city rail transportation that was replaced by the paving of roads during the arrival of the automobile…the ability to board a car in either the center of a small town or a city…inexpensive right of ways…side of the road operations…etc. Have you noticed how “park and ride” lots or stations seem to be in the proverbial boondocks and require a car to reach them? Feeder routes versus boarding or arriving at city or town centers. Outside of a major breakthrough in battery technology, I look at the automobile dependant suburban subdivisions…that are as old as the auto itself…what?..fifty years…? In the scale of things…not a long era…The major real estate markets are seeing an increase in urban properties while suburban ones declineI… look at lines and lines of SUV’s that no one can give away…The history of interurban era suburbs aka the PE, CA&E, CNSM etc etc…real estate development as a adjunct of rail operations…one sees the retro fitting of light rail into certain corridors as an inverse application of the “trolley” surburbs…these days…the rebuilding of the PE like lines in LA…and then consider that most commuter lines are diesel aka oil dependant…Would lightweight LRVs be less expensive to operate? Although oil has dipped abit in cost…its bound to rise again…so…are we looking at a slow but steady reappearance of The Interurban Era? The market place and the economics of oil seem to be steering this trend…I am somewhat surprised that someone hasnt noticed these trends and propose extending city light rail lines into true interurbans…San Diego seems to be in the lead in this…I see that the former South Shore has ordered gallery cars…one wonders how this former (?) interurban road compares in operating cost to other comparable lines…this is a sort of “big picture” consideration…will this eventually translate into a realignment of federal funding tha
I sort of agree. It is just that it slower in attaching itself to the American fabric than the same phenomenon of the early 20th Century. I had the same thoughts several years ago when LA, San Diego, Denver, Dallas, Buffalo and Atlanta had projects in the planning stages (since built) as did othe cities like Miami and Scranton. True, NJ did enlarge the Newark City subway with both an extension and a new branch, built a light rail system virtually the length of the Hudson County waterfront from North Bergan to Bayonne with a mid route spur into Hoboken, and built anothe “waterfront” line along the Delaware River from Camden to Trenton. And with the quick rise in gasoline prices this year I would have thought we would hear more about interurban, true interurban, rail servces. But, to answer my own question here, the gas crisis has actually pushed people toward full rail services instead. At least they haven’t tried in earnest to build busways!
During the era when electric interurban lines were constructed, the primary competition was private turnpikes/toll roads and steam railroads. The alternative was riding a horse, or hitching a carriage up and heading along a bumpy, unimproved road.
Because of the competitive landscape of the time, private investors were willing and able to raise captital to build and operate these lines. Ultimately some also built amusement parks to draw riders out of the city in the summer, and others developed suburban residential areas.
After this time period things changed – motorized cars, trucks and buses appeared, better ways to economically pave roads, and subtle changes in commerce (ability to store greater amounts of perishables in central warehouses lessened the need for daily shipments of fresh dairy and farm products, etc.)
These changes severely reduced the need for privately owned and operated interurbans by drying up effective revenues (that operating capital required to perform maintenance and replacement of equipment at end of service life). Those lines/routes that survived the post WWII era similarly became wards of the government and politics enter the picture when considering where to expand lines, how to provide coverage on existing lines, when and how to upgrade facilities, etc. Any new development was and is being done by local and/or state governments.
With this backdrop, unless two cities within the same state need service (such as linking Camden, NJ and Trenton, NJ with the RiverLine), I don’t see any new interurbans being created when a fifty passenger bus would be far cheaper and could be reassigned to a new route if the proposed service never reaches planning expectations.
I live in Bergen County, NJ with two “interurban” routes that take me direct to the GWB/175th station of the A train subway, or to the Port Authority terminal in Midtown Manhattan. These interurbans are diesel powered MCI motor coaches.&nb
The major modern Light rail systems of San Diego, St. Louis, Portland, and Baltimore all have all the characteristics of classic interurban lines except classic equipment, and are far more similar to, say, the Indiana Raialroad or the Illinois Temrinal than they are to streetcar systems. Note that Portland has both, MAX, which is trully a modern interuruban, and the Partland Streetcar, which is just that and modern also. Both systme occsioanlly run “Council Crest” deck roof Brilkl Semmi-convertable heritage cars. And there is a switch connecting them donwtowsn, so the MAX shops can be used for any fuuttre heavy overhaul of the streetcars. These lines run a tfairly high speeds, usually 55 mph. They have lots of open track with ballast and ties, and only a small portion paved on city streets. In certain cases there is reverse commuter traffic wioth employment and educational institutions elsewhere than the center city. Indeed most old-time railfans riding the St, Louis system report, it is something like an Illinois Termial resurection. With more extensions, Denver and Salt Lake City will probably also reach this stage, aqnd Dallasm also. And there is no technical reason why speeds cannot be increased over 55 mph. Also, several of the Los Angeles liines now meet this discription or will when completed or extended. For example the exisiting Blue Liner really duplicates the Old Los Angeles - Long Beach Pacfici Electric interurban line in toto, except for a subway downtwon, instead of the interurban terminal reached by street trackage. One interuban line has been resurected!
Gotta disagree with you there. Planners are turning to heavy and light rail to solve many of todays transportation problems. Especially where you live. The air cannot take the pollution, the City cannot take any more motor vehicles, and there is no room to build more highways. Thus you have the HBLRT from North Bergan to Bayonne and Hoboken and plans being made for DMU’s on the old West Shore and Northern RR alignments and extending NJT’s wire west from Montclair University/Great Notch to Denville and then from Dover to Port Morris; will West Trenton get wire or diesel service? Other cities and metroplitan areas are experiencing the same questions. Not that I am against buses, it is just that overall there is (finally) underway mass transit planning that is taking into consideration all forms of transportation in any given situation and not just pouring more concrete on the ground and spewing more pollutants into the air. Many more factors besides track or highway capacity and speed are being considered today.
My stepdaughter lives in Ardmore PA, and commutes via the P&W, more recently called SEPTA’s 100 Norristown High Speed Line. Why high speed? It’s a marketing maneuver, if they called it slow and decrepit nobody would ride.
I finally got my wife to take a ride. At Norristown I mentioned “in 1912 the station was about 4 blocks further into town, in 1948 they cut it back about a block, then 15 years ago they cut it back to here so it could share space with the train station and they’d have more room for the connecting buses.”
My wife’s not a railfan, I usually get big resistance from her whenever I drag her for a trolley ride, but she really got me emotional, she said “They should build it to go further”, so I had a chance to tell her about the thru and connecting (1948-1952) Lehigh Valley Transit service to Allentown.
Actually, after reading your post, I think you and I agree, not disagree. Unless you really beli
[8D] Toe-may-to vs. Tah-Ma-Ta
[:D]
One reason could be because when one wanted to build a line between cities one tended to use the most efficient route available at the time, and since those cities (Los Angeles and Long Beach for example), and the mountains and rivers of 50-100 years ago, have not actually moved much, those routes tend still to be the most efficient to use now.
You quoted my Lehigh Valley Transit comment, and mentioned GM, Firestone and Standor Oil removing rights of way. What involvement did those companies have in Lehigh Valley Transit’s getting out of the interurban trolley business?
One involvement was this: Highways taxes from any source could only be used for highway reltated purposes, by Federal laws passed because of Highway Lobby backing, and GM stockholders’ reports of the 30’s will show you how much they took credit for this. So you have a major industry with most of its real estate not paying real estate taxes. So this hurt both all public transportation, including bus, and all non-highway transportation both freight and passenger.
There was probably a good economic case for abandoning Easton Limited and Liberty Bell in the postwar period anyway. And restoration of passenger service would not involve rebuilding the interurban, but simply extending SEPTA from Landsdale through Bethlehem to Allentown, and possibly further through Willksbarre to Scranton. Scranton should have as good access to Philly as it does to NY for the sake of the Pennsylvanina economy. The whole area would benenfit from good passenger service on the route described.
Riding the Liberty Bell was one of my greatest pleasures as a teenager, and I remember Charlie Houser, LVT motorman. Rode it first in 1947, age 15. Only the North Shore was as terrific a thrill in my book. Still, what remains, SEPTA 100, is a great ride and heartilyi recommended. Too bad it is too short.
I would not be surprised to see streetcar service restored Allentown - Bethlehem in the future, however. This would not be an interurban, but would be similar to the Portland Streetcar or possibly a heritage operation. The old Mincie Trail line.
Check the Senate hearings of 1949-50 I believe. Quite a scandal.
While there was a determination made that National City Lines was a entity that was involved in illegal activity of a conspiratorial nature, it would take a line by line finacial analysis to determine which lines were sustainable in the face of the onslaught of the automobile. While this is simply speculation, I think its perhaps reasonable to assume that this conspiracy only moved up the inevitable on the time line…sooner rather than later. On the other hand, if these lines were “doomed”…why invest the considerable energy, money and orginizational resources to accomplish what time would do at no cost? Odd, I have never settled that question in my own mind to my own satisfaction. I think the dedicated bus routing or express bus system will be viable only in terms of having a short shelf life…much like the original interurban lines as much as the availibility and cost of oil as fuel in terms of being viable is equally “doomed” as once again all this is only a matter of time. It is an interim solution and ad hoc. What is the longest light rail route? If you add in planned and funded extensions…which one is closest to being worthy of the name “interurban”?
I’d nominate The RiverLine at 34 miles, running from Camden to Trenton linking a state capitol with a major municipality (that happens to be a water taxi ride from Philadelphia).
Portland MAX blue line is 33 miles may also be a great candidate
I posted in another thread:
"Read From Railway to Freeway by Eli Bail Interurbans Special #90 1984
You will find that the “GM” conspiracy is much overated. Cost and lack of ridership led to the demise of many of the interurban street car lines in LA , in many cases long before National City Lines entered the picture. The rail operaters wanted out of the passenger business. National City was the transportation company willing and able to buy them out. Yes they were as bus oriented company in part because of who owned them, but they were in busness to make money. The believed that buses being less expensive to buy and operate, more flexible in routing, and not having the infrastructure cost (maint and property taxes), would give better service (probabl
there’s not much service on that water taxi, and most destinations in Philadelphia are many blocks away from the water taxi. I think it’s more realistic to say it’s a train (PATCO) or bus connection from Philly.
Also the Trenton end is a bus connection away from downtown, since the Riverline terminates at the Amtrak station, which is not in itself a bad thing, since it allows connections to New York trains.
Good point about the water taxi, and the metro bus connection in Trenton…how difficult is it to transfer to PATCO in Camden? Could the RiverLine be extended into the heart of Trenton? From Google Earth, it looks like there’s an old ROW extening from the current terminal into Trenton.
Still, the line still qualifies as a long (perhaps the longest) interurban rail route.
You mention connection between RiverLine and New York trains at Trenton…If I wanted an economical, express ride between Philly and NYC, I’d consider the Bolt Bus from 30th street to Madison Sq Gardens for $17.50 each way. While not downtown on the philly end, it’s got connections by mass transit connections (and regional rail connections) on each end of the route and it’s far cheaper than amtrak and quicker than SEPTA/NJT routing. Bolt Bus also services DC and Boston with express services (four hours NYC to Boston South Station - that’s Acela timing) at very low ticket prices.
If you consider the era of electric interubans lasted from say 1888 to 1940 (a period of 52 years), isn’t it remarkable that intercity bus operations (Greyhound in particular) are still in operation having been founded in 1914 (a period of 92 years)? 13,000 daily departures serving 2,300 destinations. Add to this regional and commuter coach operations and you have an industry that isn’t going to dry up in the next decade or two. From a “green” standpoint, one motor coach has the potential to remove 44 SUV’s/Sedans/Minivans from the road during the morning commute. LRT can remove more, but only if it’s commuter friendly (actually used by larger numbers of commuters). If you have to drive five miles or more to the local train station, or park and ride, what are we really accomplishing?
Bus Rapid Transit funding is growing, and calling it “ad hoc” is a compliment – if the route doesn’t pan out, the lanes can be used for other traffic, the buses re-employed elsewhere. If you build a infrastructure-heavy LRT line and then have population density changes along the route (ie. Buffalo), you’re kinda stuck with the investment.
To be clear, where electified LRT exists, it will likely be extended and nurtured (as it should be), but where none currently exists, its hard to see where money will come from to build a new line from scratch (the difference in cost per mile for E-LRV versus BRT seems to be widening with time, but I don’t know why – anyone else have a clue?)